Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Southern Railway Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN AND CHINA.

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the terms of the communication which has been sent by Mr. Yokoyama, the Japanese Consul-General in Geneva, to the League of Nations with reference to the attitude of Japan towards China and the League?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I have no knowledge of any communication from the Japanese Consul-General at Geneva to the League of Nations.

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries on the subject in view of the statements in the Press that the Japanese Government are raising no objection to the work of the League in China?

Sir J. SIMON: The only statement I have seen in the Press is that the Japanese Consul-General has made a communication to journalists at Geneva. There is a distinction between a communication to journalists and information given to the League of Nations.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Japanese Government are raising no objection to the work which the League is doing in China?

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received any information from Japan indicating that under its new policy Japan will exercise the right of
veto over the export of war materials to China; and, if so, what representations he intends to make to protect British interests?

Sir J. SIMON: I have received no such information.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is a most important matter for the firms concerned, and particularly in Sheffield?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AMERICAN STATES (ARMS).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Council of the League of Nations is considering the recommendation of League members to cut off the supply of arms and munitions to Bolivia and Paraguay and also, if necessary, to Colombia and Peru; and, if so, whether there are any countries not members of the League who are now exporting arms to these four nations?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not clear as to what "recommendation" my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. Discussion of the question of the imposition of an arms embargo in the Bolivia-Paraguay dispute was suspended by the Council of the League of Nations in view of the decision to despatch a League Commission to investigate, and has not been resumed pending the receipt of the report and recommendations of this Commission which should shortly be laid before the Council. As regards the Peru-Colombia dispute, I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that negotiations for a final settlement are still proceeding in accordance with the terms of the agreement signed at Geneva on the 26th May last. In the circumstances the last part of the question does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (ARREST).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the case of Walter Spielmann, a British national, who has been sentenced to two-and-a-half years' imprisonment for making a remark in Germany derogatory to the Nazi Government; and whether he is prepared to make representations suggesting Spielmann's deportation to Great Britain?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 5th February last to my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson).

Mr. ADAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man's alleged offence consisted of saying in a barber's shop : "If you want the truth, you must read the British newspapers"?

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will know the previous answer, and he will be the last person to wish by a supplementary question to create a false impression. The answer given was that this gentleman possesses German nationality.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Would not such action be an unwarrantable interference in the affairs of another nation?

Mr. ADAMS: Is it not the case that this man possesses British nationality as well?

Sir J. SIMON: I think that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATELESS REFUGEES.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is the intention of the Government to ratify the convention on the international status of stateless refugees?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I returned to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. E. Davies) on the 26th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BRITISH PORTS (FORKIGN WAR VESSELS).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps are usually taken in the event of foreign war vessels, whose crew is suspected of including persons who are infringing the Foreign Enlistment Act, entering British naval ports?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): So far as I am aware, there has been no case of a foreign war vessel entering a British naval port in such circumstances. I would, however, remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the ordinary rules of international law with regard to jurs-
diction over war vessels of a foreign Power in a British port would not admit of any action being taken as regards persons on board.

CADETS.

Mr. COCKS: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give the number of cadets to be entered at Dartmouth at the age of 13, the number of executive and engineering cadets to be entered by the special entry scheme at the age of 17, and the number of commissions as sub-lieutenant and sub-lieutenant (E) to be available for lower-deck ratings this year?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: It has been announced that 13 executive cadetships will be offered at the special entry examination in June. The numbers to be entered from the special entry examination in November, and those to be entered at Dartmouth, I am not at present in a position to state. Provided that suitable candidates present themselves, it is anticipated that six executive commissions will be given to lower deck ratings. So far as can be foreseen, five cadets will be entered for engineering duties at each of the two special entry examinations, and two from the mercantile marine. The probable number of engine room ratings to be promoted to commissioned rank is four.

BATTLESHIPS (AIR DEFENCE).

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the policy of the Admiralty is based upon the conclusion that a battleship in His Majesty's Navy would be able to survive an attack from the air?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes, Sir. Battleships should be able to defend themselves against all methods of attack, including those from the air.

Mr. WILMOT: I thank the First Lord for his reply. May I ask whether when he uses the word "should," he implies "can"?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I do not think that this is the time to enter upon a debate of the subject. I have told the hon. Member what the policy is.

Mr. WILMOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for such a vessel to be subjected to the necessary tests to
ascertain whether such defence is possible?

Mr. WHITESIDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no bomb yet invented is capable of sinking a battleship?

Mr. V. ADAMS: What about the American experiments?

SALUTES.

Mr. MAXTON: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reason for the order he has recently issued to officers and men in the Navy which compels them to salute by raising the hand when riding bicycles or driving motor cars?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The ordinary form of salute, with the hand, has been adopted as more suitable than the form previously in force. The new salute, like the old one, is to be given only if the state of the road and traffic conditions permit.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask whether before making this order the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Minister of Transport?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, Sir; it was not necessary, because the Highway Code laid down by the Minister of Transport requires a movement of the hand for any of the movements requiring signalling.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the First Lord think it is a necessary part of the manipulation of a motor car and bicycle to salute an officer of the Navy?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Salutes are recognised in the Red Army, subject to the conditions prevailing on the road surface.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that privates in the Red Army when driving in their motor cars never salute?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The hon. Member knows more about that than I do.

LIGHT-WEIGHT STEAM PLANT.

Mr. CHORLTON: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has yet had any report of the special light-weight steam plant from Germany; and whether some modification of this is being considered for use in our naval vessels?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: My attention has already been called to this development. My hon. Friend may rest assured that consideration is given to any such developments which are brought to notice and which give promise of advantage to the Naval Service.

CYPRUS (MURDER OF M. TRIANTAFFILIDES).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the investigations into the murder of M. Triantaffilides during January last have now been completed; whether the Governor of Cyprus has reported further on this matter; and if there was any reason to believe that this crime was political in its nature?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The Governor of Cyprus reports that there have been no further developments, and that evidence as to the motive for the crime is still entirely lacking.

JAMAICA (BANANA DISEASE).

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made during 1933 in efforts to combat Panama disease of bananas in Jamaica; and whether the number of diseased plants during 1933 represented a percentage increase over the previous year?

Sir PERCY HURD: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can make a statement as to the extent of the banana disease in Jamaica, and the progress of measures to combat it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed that Panama disease of bananas gained ground in Jamaica in 1933 as a result of the year's exceptional rainfall. For the month of January, 1934, there was an increase of 50 per cent. in recorded and treated cases over the number for January, 1933. So far as funds will allow, investigations on the breeding and trial of resistant and immune types of bananas are being extended; a special series of soil observations has been commenced; and trial shipments of Cavendish bananas—a variety believed to be immune—have been made from the Colony.

Sir P. HURD: May I ask whether the progress of the banana disease is beginning to make any change in our sugar policy in the way of extending the cultivation of sugar?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid that I do not understand the precise connection.

Sir P. HURD: I want to know whether the advance in the banana disease, has led the right hon. Gentleman to make any change in the way of increased cultivation of sugar in the colony?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My hon. Friend is aware that there is a large basic preference given to all sugar within the Empire, and there is a special extra preference, which I am bound to say I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adjusted on a generous scale, for sugar production in the Colonies.

SOMALILAND (CRIMINAL JUSTICE).

Mr. LUNN: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether district commissioners in the Somaliland Protectorate, sitting as magistrates, exercise the power of inflicting the death penalty?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Under the Administration of Criminal Justice Ordinance a district commissioner cannot try murder or treason which are punisliable with death, and are triable by the Protectorate Court. Under an amendment passed in 1933, however, a district commissioner may be specially empowered by the Commissioner to try natives for these offences in the absence from the Protectorate of either the Commissioner or the Secretary to the Government, who are the officers empowered to hold the Protectorate Court.

Mr. LUNN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any provision exists in the British Somaliland Protectorate whereby the tribal fines imposed by district commissioners are reviewed and, if necessary, revised by the Governor?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Where tribal fines are authorised by law in British Somaliland, these may only be imposed by His Majesty's Commissioner : except in the case of fines under the Pro-
tection of Boundary Pillars Ordinance, 1931, which may be levied by a district commissioner after judicial inquiry. The fine under this Ordinance is fixed at Rs.100 for each boundary pillar damaged, and there is no provision for review.

Mr. LUNN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that in the British Protectorate of Somaliland there are no courts of justice other than those held by local administrative officers, he proposes to take steps to establish a judicial system?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: While I do not think it would be either possible or desirable to establish a separate judicial system in Somaliland, I have already under consideration the question of providing legal assistance for the Protectorate Administration, and I propose to discuss the matter with the Commissioner, who is proceeding on leave shortly.

Mr. LUNN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that something should be done or that some right of appeal should be given against District Commissioners in cases of sentence of death?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Gentleman will read the answers I have given to previous questions he will see that the District Commissioners only try such offences under a special power. I am speaking from memory, but I think that in all those cases there is a right of appeal to the Commissioner. On the broad issue, I am sure it would be both impracticable and undesirable in Somaliland to separate the judicial and the administrative functions.

PALESTINE (CHURCH OF HOLY SEPULCHRE).

Mr. RANKIN: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by what date the report of the expert upon the nature of the repairs will be necessary to prevent the ruin of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem; and whether he will give an indication that the British Government is prepared to assist the Government of Palestine in the preservation of this historic building?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If my hon. Friend will refer to the reply given on the 31st January, of which a copy has
been sent to him, he will see that certain works of consolidation which are immediately necessary are already being carried out. It was expected that these works would be completed by the end of April. The cost of these temporary works is being defrayed provisionally by the Government of Palestine, and the question of the provision of funds, both for the temporary works and for such permanent works as may be decided upon, will be a matter for discussion with the ecclesiastical authorities concerned. No question arises of a grant from the British Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries as to whether it is not possible for the patriarchs to look after their own churches?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have stated the position quite clearly and indeed very accurately.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any ground for the apprehension that the building is approaching a state of ruin?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There were certain things brought to our notice. I gave a very full answer to other questions as to the steps taken to bring a very good expert to advise on the matter. It was essential to take immediately certain steps to ensure the structural safety of the building. The House will agree that it was right that the Government of Palestine should take these immediate steps, and it is now discussing the various projects suggested.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Have the religious bodies concerned made contributions?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The matter was very urgent and certain immediate repairs had to be effected in order to ensure the safety of this building. I am sure the whole House would agree that it would be very wrong for the Government of Palestine not to take those steps. Now We are discussing with the religious bodies the question of contributions.

KENYA (ENGLISHMAN'S DEATH).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what
was the amount of the fine imposed on the Samburu tribe, members of which were held responsible for the death of an Englishman in Kenya; and whether, in view of such imposition, it has been definitely concluded that the man was murdered by members of the tribe in question?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have made inquiry of the Governor and I am informed that no fine has yet been imposed on the Samburu tribe. Inquiries have just been completed in respect of certain murders of natives, but a decision has not yet been reached as to whether a collective fine should be imposed. Inquiries are still proceeding into the death of the Englishman to whom my hon. Friend refers.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Do I gather that it has not been established that this Englishman was murdered by these tribesmen?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is what I have just stated.

Mr. MORGAN-JONES: Is it the custom where such offences are established for collective fines to be imposed on a tribe?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is difficult to say that a thing is a custom. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a system of collective fines imposable when it is quite plain that in justice and equity a fine should be imposed on the tribe as a whole—a system not unknown to our law in this country in the case of disturbance—but the greatest care is exercised by the local administration in deciding in any particular case whether such a. fine is justifiable.

GOLD COAST (CRIMINAL CODE).

Mr. WHITE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will provide for the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the ordinance dealing with the amendment of the sedition clauses in the criminal code of the Gold Coast?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have arranged to have a copy of the Gold Coast Criminal Code (Amendment) Ordinance No. 21 of 1934 placed in the Library of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

UNITED STATES AIRCEAFT.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 23 and 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether it is proposed to acquire for Royal Air Force experimental purposes any samples of the latest United States types of army aircraft; and, if so, will he give details;
(2) whether it is proposed to acquire for civil aviation development purposes any samples of the latest United States types of commercial high-speed aircraft; and, if so, will he give details?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The purchase for experimental purposes of one of the latest types of United States high-speed aircraft is under consideration. No definite decision has yet been reached and I am not, therefore, in a position to give any details.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Would it not be best first to encourage our own aircraft builders before buying machines from the United States?

Sir P. SASSOON: There is no harm in seeing what we can learn from other countries.

AIR STRENGTH.

Captain BALFOUR: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether a foreign air force, equipped with every type of modern aircraft and operating from a base 1,300 miles from London, will be treated as being within striking distance of our shores for the purpose of obtaining air parity?

Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that I am, not in a position at this stage to add anything to the recent statements made on the subject of air parity on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Captain BALFOUR: Would my right hon. Friend be so good as to answer the question on the Paper, which did not deal with the policy of His Majesty's Government, but asked whether an air force operating 1,300 miles away from London would come within the ambit of that policy?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am afraid I cannot add anything to my answer.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Does my right hon. Friend realise that Moscow is within 1,300 miles of London?

ACCIDENT, NORTHOLT.

Mr. WHITESIDE: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any information with regard to the fatal flying accident which occurred at Northolt Royal Air Force aerodrome, Middlesex, and the cause which led to the failure of the pilots' parachutes to open?

Sir P. SASSOON: This accident was the result of a collision which occurred at a height of about 2,000 feet. One of the pilots did not succeed in getting out of his aircraft until the last moment and did not pull his parachute rip-cord; the parachute of the other pilot, who was able to jump clear earlier, apparently became entangled in one of the aerial wires of the aircraft and failed in consequence to open properly.

Mr. WHITESIDE: In the event of the automatically opening parachute which has just been invented proving satisfactory, will my right hon. Friend consider making that type the standard in the Air Force?

Sir P. SASSOON: We have got every satisfaction from the present parachute.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROMFORD ROAD (ACCIDENTS).

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: 27 and 29.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the frequent accidents that take place on the Romford Road between Green Street, Forest Gate, and the Broadway, Ilford, in the majority of eases to children; and whether he will consider the imposition of a speed limit;
(2) whether he is aware that there are four schools and two railway stations all evacuating into the two miles of the Romford Road between Green Street, Forest Gate, and the Broadway, Ilford; that all day long there is a stream of traffic, both ways, of lorries, tramcars, and omnibuses, as well as motor cars and motor cycles, and that a high and dangerous speed is attained owing to this road being so straight; and will he take immediate steps to alleviate the danger to foot passengers and the anxiety of the parents of young children both while attending school and during play hours?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The conditions in the section of Romford Road referred to have been brought to my notice on a number of occasions but they do not present features which differ materially from those in other main roads in London. The road receives continuous attention from traffic patrols and police on foot and a police officer attends at each of the four schools in the vicinity of Romford Road to assist children during the times of assembly and departure. In the Road Traffic Bill now before Parliament, I am proposing a general speed limit in built-up areas and am seeking powers to approve schemes for the establishment of crossing places for foot passengers.

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: Would my hon. Friend take steps to erect pedestrian crossings at dangerous places before the summer?

Mr. STANLEY: That will depend upon the rapidity with which the House approves of the proposals of the Road Traffic Bill.

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, EAST HAM.

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the ever-increasing volume of traffic which uses the route Rabbits Road, Fourth Avenue, and Browning Road as a means of avoiding the traffic congestion in the High Street, East Ham; and will he take steps to provide some additional safeguard for pedestrians and school children?

Mr. STANLEY: According to the information before me this route is not much used by vehicles; and in the six months ended 31st March last only one accident involving serious injury has been reported as having occurred in the roads in question. In the circumstances no special proposals are now under my consideration for providing additional safeguards for pedestrians in these particular roads, but I will have further inquiries made.

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the making of an alternative route over the river, as was proposed some 20 years ago, with a view to relieving the congestion on the Romford Road and the High Street in East Ham, leading from East Ham to Ilford?

BRIDGE, SELBY.

Colonel ROPNER: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can now make any statement with regard to the possibility of an early start being made with the construction of a new bridge at Selby?

Mr. STANLEY: I have agreed to make a grant from the Road Fund towards the cost of preparation of surveys and a report by a consulting engineer as to the most desirable route for a by-pass to include a new bridge over the River Ouse, near Selby. Until the surveys are completed and the report received, I cannot make any statement as to the possibility of an early start being made with construction work.

ROAD ACCIDENTS (STATISTICS).

Mr. PARKINSON: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the issue of future weekly returns of persons killed and injured in road accidents, he will give separate figures for the various classes of motor and horse-drawn vehicles?

Mr. STANLEY: The return furnished to me each week by chief officers of police as to the numbers of persons killed or injured in road accidents does not distinguish the classes of vehicles involved; and I do not feel justified in asking them to undertake the additional work which would be involved in subdivision of these totals.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Could my hon. Friend give some details of the reasons why these accidents happen; what is the cause of them?

MOTORING OFFENCES (PROSECUTION, CROYDON).

Mr. THORNE: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a report from his inspector in connection with a lorry driver, who was fined by the Croydon magistrates for exceeding the speed limit; and, seeing that the defendant was compelled by the firm in question to work long hours and exceed the legal limit, since if he refused he would be dismissed, what steps it is proposed to take?

Mr. STANLEY: I have no inspectors engaged on these duties and am unable to identify this particular case. The enforcement of the law relating to speed limits and hours of driving is primarily the duty of the police but when the
licensing system established by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, has come into full operation, the licensing authorities under that Act will be able to take matters of this kind into consideration as failure to comply with the law in these respects will constitute a breach of the conditions of licences. Meanwhile, if the hon. Member cares to supply me with details of the case, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in all these cases where drivers are called upon to work long hours, the firms are anti-trade union firms?

PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT.

Sir W. BRASS: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission on Transport, 1929, in their report on the control of traffic on roads, recommended against a speed limit in built-up areas and the evidence tendered by the Urban District Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations was also hostile to these limits, he has consulted these two associations before setting up speed limits in their areas, as laid down in Clause 1 of the Road Traffic Bill now before Parliament?

Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir.

Sir W. BRASS: Am I to understand from the answer that the local authorities in whose areas a speed limit is to be imposed have never been consulted?

Mr. STANLEY: Yes, Sir. The responsibility for these proposals rests with the central government.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Will the Minister consider increasing the number of road patrols rather than enforcing a speed limit?

REGENT'S PARK (ST. JOHN'S LODGE).

Rear - Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: 35.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the continuation of the mansion in Regent's Park, formerly known as St. John's Lodge, as a residence or for occupational uses is a result of a definite policy, or whether the alternative question of it being added to the amenities of the park has been post-
poned for decision; and, if so, till what date?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): In pursuance of the policy to abolish, so far as possible, enclosures in the Royal Parks, the gardens of St. John's Lodge have already been added to Regent's Park, and, as I have stated in reply to previous questions, the future of the house itself is still under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider suggestions as to utilising this building?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Very gladly. As I have informed the House, suggestions that it might be used as a branch museum are being considered.

SCOTLAND (FARM HOUSE SANITATION).

Mr. LEONARD: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a complaint was lodged on the 31st January, 1933, and a copy sent to the Department of Health, regarding the structural, sanitary, and other defects of the farm of Udale, Ross and Cromarty, and that the local authority decided that it was not reasonably practicable to introduce water into the houses or to provide water closets, and that on the 29th December, 1033, his Department reported that its engineering inspector had advised that it was reasonably practicable to provide water closets and introduce water; and whether any steps have been taken to force the local authority to carry out its statutory duties?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the county council have taken steps to secure the introduction of water into the houses, and the provision of a chemical closet for each house. With regard to the third part, there is no further action which, in the circumstances of this case, I can take.

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: When making that investigation, will my right hon. Friend also have investigated the innumerable defects, sanitary and otherwise, in the constituency of St. Rollox?

Mr. LEONARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that water is already available about 50 yards from this point, and therefore chemical closets are not necessary?

Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that the steps taken by the county council are in their opinion sufficient, that water is being taken into the house and that the particular type of closet is suitable.

Mr. LEONARD: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that complaints were lodged with the Moray County Council in respect of houses on Seafield, Netherton, and Waterford farms on 25th March, 1932, and Grange-hall on 29th March, 1932, that on 15th November, 1932, the local authority intimated that it did not propose to take any action because it considered the complaints trivial; and that the matter was reported to the Department of Health on 17th November, 1932, who, on 1st April, 1933, intimated that an independent inspection would be made by one of its housing inspectors; whether this independent inspection disclosed that the statutory requirements were not fulfilled in respect of the houses complained about; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to see that the local authority carries out its statutory duties?

Sir G. COLLINS: The answers to the first three parts of the question are in the affirmative. With regard to the fourth part, the inspection disclosed that the houses were to some extent defective; and I understand that the proprietor is at present proceeding to carry out the improvements recommended by the county sanitary inspector. In these circumstances I do not propose at this stage to take further action.

Mr. LEONARD: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the farm of Easter Moy, Muir of Ord, was the subject of a complaint as to water supply, lodged with the local authority on 19th November, 1927, and sent to the Department of Health on 19th March, 1928; that the local authority in October, 1932, decided that water could not be supplied nearer the houses than at present; that the occupier lodged an appeal under Section 38 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, on 5th November, 1932; that in December, 1932, the
Department of Health decided to hold a local inquiry in the week commencing 9th January, 1933, but subsequently decided not to hold an inquiry because the proprietor proposed to provide a water supply; and whether, seeing that on 29th December, 1933, the engineering inspector of the department reported that water could be brought into the house, he will state what action he now proposes to take in the matter?

Sir G. COLLINS: The answers to the first four parts of the question are in the affirmative. With regard to the fifth part, I am informed that the proprietor has applied for a grant under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, in order to provide a water supply, and that this application is at present under consideration by the county council.

Mr. LEONARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proprietor of this farm gave an undertaking in January, 1933, to remedy the defect and this stopped the inquiry proposed by the Department; that since then the proprietor has taken no action; and is he further aware that this complaint goes back to 1927?

Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that this matter has been lying over for some time. As the hon. Member will gather from my answer, a definite application has now come before the county council, and in those circumstances I can take no further steps at the moment.

INDIA (RIOTS, KAPURTHALA).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in the recent communal riots, attended with loss of life, in Kapurthala State, any individuals domiciled in British territory were concerned on either side?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Buller): I understand that the State authorities have reason to believe that persons from British India were concerned on both sides. Further inquiries are being made.

HOUSING (COUNCIL HOUSE RENTS, SHEFFIELD).

Mr. PIKE: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, at a
meeting of the Sheffield Corporation estates committee held on 22nd March, 1934, it was decided by a majority of eight votes to seven to reduce the amount payable by tenants of corporation houses in respect of rent; that of the eight members supporting the resolution four were tenants of corporation houses; and if he proposes to take action against these persons under Section 12, Sub-section (c), of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): No, Sir. The Municipal Corporations Act and also the Housing Act, 1925, forbid a tenant of a house belonging to a local authority to vote upon any matter relating to his own house. Proceedings in respect of any contravention of these provisions of the law can be taken without the intervention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. PIKE: Do I understand that the ratepaying community in Sheffield, other than the tenants of corporation houses, have power to protect themselves against these practices; and will the Minister state what powers they have?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Any ratepayer acting as a common informer can take the action provided for under these Acts.

ILFORD COUNCIL MATERNITY HOME (CHARGES).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Ilford council maternity home have charged a police constable £13 10s. for 16 days that his wife was in the home; and, in view of the declared practice of the home to base their charges on the income of the patient, he will inquire into the case, in view of the fact that a police constable's wages are insufficient to support so heavy a charge?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The question of the charges to be made at this home is a matter within the discretion of the town council, but my right hon. Friend will communicate with the council and inform my hon. Friend of the result.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CARBONS (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. MANDER: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, prior to the introduction of the duty on carbons, any negotiations took place with, or undertaking was given by, the Process Engravers Association representing those engaged in the process engraving industry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): No representations on the subject were made to the Board of Trade by the Process Engravers Association, and the hon. Member will be aware that it would be contrary to precedent to inform interested parties of the contents of a Budget resolution imposing higher taxation on commodities before it is introduced.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not obvious that, as nobody knew about the impending duty, they could not possibly make representations; and will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation from this association?

Dr BURGIN: I think it was made clear when the matter was dealt with in debate that the Department would be prepared to receive representations from organised persons.

Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation?

Dr. BURGIN: Certainly.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Though apparently the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to receive representations from the Process Engravers Association, did he not receive representations from the Cinema Association and also the producers of this particular carbon in this country; and were not they given special favour over the process engravers?

Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir. No special favours were given to anybody.

INTER-IMPERIAL TRADE (NEW ZEALAND).

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of a general consultation with the Dominions to consider the issues raised by the inquiry of the New Zealand Government as to whether an agreement could be come to providing for a free market for British goods in New Zealand
in return for a similar free market for New Zealand goods in this country?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have received no indication from any of His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions that an arrangement of the kind referred to is desired or would be acceptable to them. In the circumstances, I see no reason to think that any general consultation such as is suggested by the hon. Member would be of advantage.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the grave danger to the Empire of the "Little Englander" attitude of the Government—

Mr. SPEAKER: Brigadier-General Spears.

FRUIT PULP.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Import Duties Advisory Committee have now made their recommendations in respect to the import duty on fruit pulp; and, if so, what action is being taken thereon?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given on the 22nd May last to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Emrys-Evans), of which I am sending him a copy.

COTTON INDUSTRY (JAPANESE NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. CHORLTON (by Private Notice): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make any statement on the conversations between His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government relating to the cotton and rayon industries?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am having a further consultation with the Japanese Ambassador to-morrow. I expect to be able to make a statement on the position very shortly.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: What does the right hon. Gentleman actually mean when he says "very shortly"? Does that mean this week or next week?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Next week.

POLITICAL PARTIES (UNIFORMS).

Mr. V. ADAMS: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the disturbances caused by the wearers of political uniforms and their continued propaganda against our free constitution, he will take steps to declare the blackshirt movement illegal?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I regret that I cannot add anything to the previous replies which I have given on this subject.

Mr. ADAMS: In view of those previous replies, cannot my right hon. Friend at this stage, specify some time-limit beyond which our liberties need not be threatened by Sir Oswald Mosley's morons?

VAGRANCY ACT.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 46.
asked the Home Secretary when he will introduce legislation to amend the Vagrancy Act?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In view of the pressure of other Parliamentary business, I cannot say at present when it may be possible to introduce legislation on this subject : but the matter will not be overlooked, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement at an early date.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: May I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that we have long been awaiting a decision on the subject?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

FOREIGN FILMS (TAXATION).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider instituting an inquiry into the practicability of imposing some new forms of taxation on the large sums of money which are annually sent out of this country in respect of the rental of foreign films?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The question of amendment, in such manner as may be necessary or expedient, of the law relating to taxation is constantly engaging my right hon. Friend's attention, and he does not at present consider it
necessary to institute any special form of inquiry on the topic to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Would the hon. Gentleman be willing to receive suggestions as to how this object can be achieved?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, we shall be very grateful for suggestions.

INCOME TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Sir JOHN HASLAM (for Mr. POTTER): 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount received by the Exchequer from the co-operative societies in respect of Income Tax under Schedule D for the financial year just ended?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As stated in my reply to a similar question on the 17th April, a special inquiry was instituted in order to ascertain the increased liability to Income Tax resulting from last year's legislation regarding industrial and provident societies.

ECONOMY SALARY CUTS (PARTIAL RESTORATION).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can issue a statement setting out the respective cost of restoring 50 per cent. of the economy cuts in the salaries of those affected; the approximate percentage by which such salaries will be now increased; and how pensions will be affected as a result?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In reply to the first part of the question, I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the approximate allocation among the various services of the estimate of the cost to the Exchequer in the current financial year of the half-restoration of cuts in emoluments from 1st July, 1934. The very numerous calculations required by the second part of the question in their application over the very wide field concerned would involve an expenditure of time and labour which I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate could not be justified. As regards the third part of the question, while arrangements as regards pension vary from Service to Service and sometimes also within the Service, it may be stated in general terms that where pension varies with the actual amount of pay a small increase in pension is involved for persons retiring after the date of the increase in pay.

Mr. WILMOT: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that those who
suffer pay cuts will not be required in perpetuity to suffer a cut in their pensions?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think I should be very indiscreet to give an assurance in perpetuity.

Following are the figures referred to :



£


Ministers
11,000


Members of Parliament
8,000


Judges
21,000


Civil Servants
941,000


Members of the Defence Forces
708,000


Teachers
1,820,000


Police
258,000


Insurance Doctors and Chemists
350,000



4,117,000

CIVIL AVIATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Sir M. SUETER (for Mr. LYONS): 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the independent committee presided over by Lord Gorell has yet reported; and when it is proposed that this report should be published?

Sir P. SASSOON: My Noble Friend has just received the report of the Committee, and it is now being sent to print, but some weeks must necessarily elapse before it can be available for publication.

CONVICTED BURGLARS (PUNISHMENT).

Sir J. HASLAM (for Mr. POTTER): 44.
asked the Home Secretary if, having regard to the increasing number of burglaries and to the hardship and suffering caused to those affected thereby, he will introduce legislation making it a condition that, in conjunction with punishment inflicted upon the offenders, there shall be administered so many strokes of the cat as may be recommended by his medical advisers in such cases?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There has been a large increase in recent years in cases of "breaking and entering," but the increase has been comparatively small in the particular crime of burglary, which is limited to entry of dwelling houses by night. A large number of offences of
housebreaking and shopbreaking are committed by persons, often young persons or children, who enter small houses or shops which are temporarily unoccupied and take small sums of money—often, for example, a few shillings from the gas meter. Of the persons found guilty in 1932 of breaking and entering, one-third were under 16 years of age and over one-half were under 21 years of age. I do not think the suggestion of my hon. Friend would be a suitable method of dealing with the situation.

COAL INDUSTRY (SILICOSIS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES (for Mr. DAVID GRENFELL): 47.
asked the Home Secretary the number of men employed in the coal-mining industry who have been certified to be disabled through silicosis; the number partially disabled; the number in receipt of compensation; and the number of fatal cases recorded since 1st January?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Since the 1st June, 1931, when the medical board was appointed, up to the 30th April, 1934, there have been 437 coal-miners certified by the board as disabled; 129 of these were certified as partially disabled. Earlier comparable figures are not available. From the 1st February, 1929, when the Various Industries (Silicosis) Scheme came into operation, up to the end of 1932, compensation was paid in 143 cases of disablement. There was a large number of cases in 1933, but the precise figure is not yet available. The number of deaths certified since the 1st January last is 14.

PRIVILEGES.

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the right hon. the Marquess of Linlithgow, K.T., G.C.I.E., to attend to be examined as a Witness before the Committee of Privileges.—[The Prime Minister.]

SOUTH WEST SUBURBAN WATER BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Firearms Act (1920) Amendment Bill.

South Metropolitan Gas (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

Church House (Westminster) Bill, with an Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the periods for the completion of certain works; to confer additional powers on the Sunderland and South Shields Water Company; and for other purposes." [Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill [Lords.]

Privileges,—That they give leave to the Marquess of Linlithgow to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Committee of Privileges appointed by this House, his Lordship (in his place) consenting.

SUNDERLAND AND SOUTH SHIELDS WATER BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS BILL.

Order [9th February] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

As amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered [1st Allotted Day].

NEW CLAUSE.—(Duty of Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee as to extension of insurance to Certain other classes.)

The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, make such proposals as may seem to them practicable for the insurance against unemployment of persons employed—

(a) in occupations, other than manual occupations, receiving a salary of not more than five hundred pounds per annum;
(b) as domestic servants;
(c) as outworkers;
(d) as share fishermen; and
shall make a report to the Minister containing the proposals and any recommendations of the Committee with respect thereto, and the report shall be laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.25 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The House will be pleased that at last we have an opportunity of dealing with certain classes who are outside the Unemployment Bill whom it is thought, by many observers of social matters, ought to be included. I ask the House to notice the particular principles that are involved in this new Clause, as well as the classes which it is proposed to include in the Unemployment Bill. It is proposed, first of all, that the Statutory Committee should consider these matters with a view to making a recommendation concerning people employed, first, in occupations other than manual occupations receiving not more than £500 a year, secondly as domestic servants, thirdly as outworkers, and fourthly as share fishermen.
May I say at the outset that it is a peculiar and I think a regrettable thing, and almost as marked in this new Bill as it has been in the Bills of previous years, that people are encouraged to look upon unemployment insurance as something that they should have nothing to
do with until they are in need of it, that if people are what are called good lives, they should be excluded from the operations of the Bill, and only when in need should they be seriously considered with a view to bringing them within the limits of the Bill. Some 12,000,000 employed people are already compelled, willy nilly, to contribute towards the Unemployment Insurance Fund, but certain sections are allowed to contract out, and other sections of the industrial and professional community are not in, sometimes because they do not wish it and sometimes because they are not allowed to come in as not being people who immediately need unemployment insurance.
With that introduction, may I say that the proposal to increase the limit to £500 has largely in mind, although it would not be limited to that class, the clerk of to-day, who very often is subject to very difficult conditions indeed, and while I would not use that altogether as an argument why they should be included, because I think clerks should be considered on the whole as good lives, yet it is a significant fact that, as far as one can gather, the members of that profession at the present time, almost irrespective of conditions or security of tenure, are highly desirous of coming within the limits of this Bill, largely because they think there will be some sense of security, not merely for themselves, but because of the very limited number who are subject to unemployment.
I have in my hand a letter from the General Secretary of the National Union of Clerks and Administrative Workers, and I think there are hon. Members in the House who heard Mr. Elvin state his case upstairs, and were not only struck by the justice of his claims but were very much moved by some of the examples that he gave. For instance, he pointed out that a clerk is in a different position from the ordinary industrial worker. He has to keep up a certain appearance because of his commercial connections; he is required to live in a certain class of house; and there are great demands made upon him even while he is working. That was the state of things that sometimes was difficult enough before the War, but I gather that since the War there has not been that security of tenure for clerks that there was before. Mr. Elvin says that the War changed the
conditions. There was a different attitude on the part of the average employer towards his staff. Like the artisan, the clerk was subject to economic necessity, and, if it did not pay to keep him, he was dismissed. Sometimes in the case of the more highly paid clerks they had reductions of salary for some time before they were dismissed.
Men in what are called the black-coated professions are, when thrown out of work, in many respects in a worse position than the manual workers. The manual worker is a member of a community which often has all kinds of means of bringing succour to men who are in a position like that. At any rate, the manual worker is roughly sure of his unemployment benefit, and he is not so much troubled by status and appearance. If the professional worker begins to look seedy, it undermines his chances of finding employment, and he is placed in such a position that he has to stand on his own legs. The regrettable thing is that such men often cannot turn to other classes of work. We have come to a time when professional workers march in the great unemployed processions, and in books, in the broadcast, and in many other ways we have had some pitiable tales of the lamentable conditions to which these people have been subjected.
I would, however, rather base the reason for asking for this £500 limit on the fact that, while we think these men ought to be safeguarded in case the calamity of unemployment comes upon them, they are, taken as a whole, good lives, and they will go towards securing the very principle which the Government wish to operate in their Bill, of making unemployment insurance sound and solvent. While I do not think we can too much emphasise the position in which these people are placed in case of unemployment, I think that, on the ground of good lives, they are in harmony with the desire of the Government as expressed in this Bill, and there is an unanswerable case for sending this question to the Statutory Committee.
When we come to the question of domestic servants, we are on rather more controversial ground, but on the principle that all good lives under the £500 limit—personally I would go further than that—should be members of the Insurance Fund, domestic servants should be included. The
case that was made out when this matter was before the Royal Commission was based upon the fact that there was no unemployment in domestic work and that therefore there was no need to bring domestic servants within the Unemployment Insurance Act. To my mind, that is an argument why the better placed and secure workers should be in the scheme; they will have the right to benefit if need be, and at the same time they will be helping to make the fund more secure. The Young Women's Christian Association of Great Britain emphasise this objection. They say that the risk of the unemployment of such workers is very small and that unemployment insurance paid in respect of them would constitute a revenue tax rather than an insurance against risk. The same argument has been used time and again in the case of all social insurance, and anyone who examines the evidence which was submitted to the Royal Commission with regard to the inclusion of certain classes of workers will see that the ancient arguments used against National Health Insurance in its inception were brought up again. The Scottish Council for Women's Trades took very much the same line in regard to domestic servants. Miss Jessie Stephen, who has sought to get some kind of organisation, not without success, among domestic servants, has for years been just as emphatic the other way. She speaks from first-hand experience as one who worked for years in domestic service, and she is just as emphatic that domestic servants ought to be brought within the Insurance Fund. She says :
As one who has been actively connected with the organisation of domestic servants over a period of 22 years, I am opposed to the continuation of the present regulations which except those workers from unemployment insurance unless they happen to work in places carried on for the purposes of gain.
She goes on to say :
It provides one of the chief reasons for the reluctance of the ordinary unemployed industrial worker to enter domestic service.
They are penalised because they take on this work. Apart from the argument that because persons are not unemployed at the moment or not likely to be next week they do not need to consider insurance, which is roughly the position of those who are antagonistic to including domestic servants in the scheme, I think
Miss Stephen's evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of insuring domestic servants. There is antagonism to such a proposal from those who employ domestic servants, but there was such antagonism to bringing them under National Health Insurance, and this is simply a repetition of the old feeling. The Minister may say, of course, that there would be difficulties in administering the scheme in the case of domestic servants. I do not know whether he will use that argument or not.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): No.

Mr. LAWSON: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he will not use that argument, because I have heard that objection put forward. There has been a tendency in this country to undervalue the status of domestic servants, and I think their inclusion in unemployment insurance would tend to raise their status. That would give them a standing and tend to make it easier for them to be organised, if need be. It would also give them security, and that would be valuable in the case of the older and middle aged women who wish to remain in domestic service and make it the profession of their lives, but find they cannot get work so easily as the younger ones.
I come to the case of the outworkers and share fishermen. There are many classes of outworkers; we find them in the glove industry amongst other industries. The State has had to come to the help of a good many of these people, and to set up trade boards in order to secure decent wages for them. I think the trade boards have been successful almost beyond the expectation of those responsible for setting them up. They have been so effective that when I was responsible for administering them under the Ministry of Labour I often used to say that I wished the miners were under trade boards, because it would help to get more consideration of their wages than there is at the present moment. These outworkers, some of whom are doing work which is not within the common range of knowledge, desire to be brought within the ambit of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and while there may be a number of administrative
difficulties to overcome, I think the matter should receive the very serious consideration of the Statutory Committee, for although they are getting fairly regular work they are also subject to unemployment.
The share fishermen, according to a letter from Mr. Ernest Bevan, of whose organisation some of them are members, are very definite, I understand, in the wish to be brought within the ambit of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. It is not my purpose to deal with each of these sections of workers, although it would be possible even for a layman to talk at some length on each case. There are Members here, however, from different areas of the country, who are just as anxious that the claims of these people should be considered as are any of those whose names are attached to this Clause, and I want to give them an opportunity of explaining the position of those workers with whose work they are most intimate.
In conclusion, I would say that up to the present we have not had an opportunity of considering the claims of the people covered by this new Clause, and we think they ought to be submitted to the Statutory Committee. I do not know whether the Minister's mind is made up on this matter, but at least it should be possible for us to go as far as to ask the Statutory Committee to give it their serious attention. I do not wish to make any reflections on the Royal Commission, but though the claims of most of these classes of people, if not all of them, were considered, the Royal Commission had more fundamental matters to occupy their attention, and did not have the time to go thoroughly into these cases on their merits. Therefore, there is a very strong ground for asking that the Statutory Committee should go into the question. As I said at the outset, these people are good lives, they will strengthen the fund, and go far to make it what the Government say they are trying to make it, and that is a real insurance fund. If classes like this are left out I do not see how the Government can hope to make the fund solvent.
The Government compel the industrial workers, some of them the lowest paid among our workers, to be insured against unemployment whether they want to or
not, yet at the same time there are left out whole classes of the population, who might be of considerable value to the fund. Within the classes at present outside the scheme there are small numbers of people whose circumstances when they are unemployed are lamentable in the extreme. Those people drift and drift. They try to keep up appearances and want to give of their best, but they go down stage by stage, until they find themselves under the law as it is at present and before this Bill comes into operation, dependent upon the Poor Law. I know that the Minister has made arrangements in regard to those people. The clerks and people with whom we established contact, even in the higher salary ranges of £500 a year, are very definite about it. They want to be honourable members of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said that what they really want, in order to maintain their economic security, is that they shall
receive with certainty, as of right … a weekly sum, which together with any private provision that they have been able to make, will at least, by providing money for rent, enable them to keep a home above their heads."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1933; col. 1610, Vol. 283.]
The clerks organisation replied to that :
That is exactly what the unemployment pay will be for the higher-paid non-manual workers.
It will at least be some security. The lot of the industrial worker is bad enough. There are examples up and down the country which are moving, beyond words. Bad as their condition is, the condition of the out of work professional people, in view of their training and their connections, is much more lamentable. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter his serious and sympathetic consideration and that he will agree to let the matter go to the Statutory Committee.

3.52 p.m.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: I would like to add my plea to what has just been said. In Lancashire there are hundreds of black-coated workers who, through no fault of their own, are out of a job. They come to one and say : "Cannot we get into the insurance scheme? Cannot you do something to get us a chance of subscribing?" What has been
said by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is perfectly true. They would be just the very best class of life to get on to the Insurance Fund. I do not think that so very many claims would be made by them, except in places like Lancashire, where, having worked for all those years, they suddenly find that there is no trade left and that they have to be turned away from their jobs.
I hope that the Minister of Labour will consider the matter and, if he cannot accept the proposed new Clause, that he will use his influence with the Statutory Committee to see that the case of these men is thoroughly gone into. There are also the managers of mills and the foremen who are receiving about the present stated wage of the insurance scheme. A good many of those classes want to come in, and they would be first-rate subscribers. I think the Minister ought to jump at the suggestion in regard to the domestic servants because, until the Socialist Government comes into power, there will be no unemployment among domestic servants and we ought to have their subscriptions to help the poorer members of the scheme. I am certain that the Minister will do something about it because he has always been sympathetic towards these people. To satisfy us all he has only to give an assurance that what is proposed in the new Clause will be carried out.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: I wish to urge upon the Minister the acceptance of the central claim of this proposed Clause. All that we are trying to establish this afternoon is a prima facie case in favour of the consideration of various classes of worker. I want to emphasise the plea which has already been put forward on behalf of perhaps the most pathetic class in British society, the black-coated workers. That class has had the rawest deal of the last few years of the depression. They are the people who were affected most by the decontrol of houses and the removal of rent restriction; they constituted the bulk of the 1,200,000 people who were brought within the scope of the Income Tax in 1931, and they are the victims of mechanisation in banks and commercial offices. Inasmuch as they remain unorganised and inarticulate, it is well that we should put forward their claims for considera-
tion. In commercial centres, ports and other areas which have been seriously affected by the shrinkage in world trade, it is pathetic to find skippers of boats, officers and engineers and others who occupied important positions in exporting firms unemployed, men who have had to keep up their appearance when their stomachs were frequently empty, who have committed themselves to all sorts of obligations in respect of house purchase and endowment policies, and who have struggled to give the best education to their children. It is well that we should appreciate that the whole trend of economic forces makes it urgently important that their claims should be taken into consideration in the matter of insurance.
Mechanisation is proceeding in banks, and in offices where various kinds of bookkeeping and accountancy operations are more and more being undertaken mechanically. Yet, though I may be over-estimating, and I will not commit myself to the figure probably, out of every 10 new jobs found since the War, seven have been in distributive and administrative activities. I do not think that I am far out. Here you have an ever-increasing class, inarticulate and unorganised, but of tremendous political significance. I am not going to stress this point, but I have more than a theory that the turnover at recent elections has been entirely due to the changed attitude of that great mass of inarticulate opinion. In view of the fact that the basic industries will continue to absorb less personnel because of mechanisation—fewer miners and fewer iron and steel, tinplate and ship workers being needed—and that the main economic activities are becoming distributive and administrative in this country, it is the duty of the Minister to suggest to the Statutory Committee that the position should be taken into consideration. All that we are concerned with now is to establish a prima facie case. We are not demanding that those workers should be included, but we feel that their situation is so tragic and so indescribably pathetic that we can establish a claim for their case to be considered by the Statutory Committee. I strongly urge that the Minister, if he cannot accept the proposed Clause, should at any
rate accept the implication behind it, that such classes of worker are worthy of consideration.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: At an earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill when the same matter was raised, the Minister expressed himself very sympathetically. I urge him to-day to take the most sympathetic attitude he can towards the proposal. I want to speak about the first class mentioned in the proposed new Clause, the workers of £500 a year. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I did before, that we come here from the Midlands where there are thousands of such persons who might reasonably ask this House to consider their case. We are recasting, as I think, in the main on the right lines, the system of State insurance, and this Clause merely asks that the Advisory Committee should take into consideration, as soon as possible, the claims of certain classes to be brought within the ambit of State insurance. I say nothing as to the other classes mentioned in the Clause, but as to what are shortly called the black-coated workers, I do venture to add a very strong appeal to my right hon. Friend. The plight of those workers has been referred to. I do not believe that there can be a harder case than a poor fellow trying to live on the pittance he gets from the public assistance committee. Their case is as hard as can be imagined. Many of us have personal experience of these cases, and I repeat that there cannot be a constituency where these hard cases cannot be met with. I doubt whether there is a Member of this House who has not received pleas from his constituents that when this matter was reached we should ask for sympathetic attention to be given to it.
I am sure, from what my right hon. Friend said at an earlier stage, that he is alive to the urgency of this matter. He knows how many persons are concerned in this claim. It is true that we are putting all sorts of heavy duties on the Statutory Committee. They are responsible for surveying the inauguration of this scheme. All sorts of difficulties will call for their attention, and perhaps my right hon. Friend may hesitate to add to those difficulties by sending to them the recommendations embodied in this
Clause, but, whether that be so or not, I do hope that to-day on behalf of the Government he will let it go out from this House that the plight of these persons is well realised, and that the Government desire to give them assistance as speedily as possible by bringing them within the ambit of State insurance.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: The House must at least give us credit for having brought forward something which is constructive. Last week the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. J. Reid) made a long speech criticising this side of the House for its destructive action for party advantage, but, judging by the way this Clause has been received by Members of the National Labour party, the Conservative party and the remnants of the Liberal party, it would appear that we have brought forward something which everybody wants accepted. [An HON. MEMBER : "What about the Independent Labour party?"] Probably we shall have the other view later on, so that it will be a unanimous opinion on the Floor of the House. All that we want then is the assent of the Minister of Labour. Probably we shall get it, because the arguments put forward must appeal to him.

The Clause attempts to embrace more of the workers in the Unemployment Fund. I do not want to use the argument about good lives or bad ones. Two points have been put forward this afternoon. One is the number of people out of work who are not included in the Unemployment Bill and who want some protection. The other argument has been that they are good lives. So that one cancels the other. My main point is that I want to bring within the purview of the Unemployment Bill all workers, whether by hand or by brain, because I know that from time to time, however good a man or woman is, however skilled they may be in their work, or, for the time being, however secure they may be in their employment, there comes a period, especially in this age, when men and women are thrown out of work and cannot protect themselves. It may be said that 20 or 30 years ago anyone who desired it was always sure of a job, but that is gone by now, and we must give protection to all. We want to give an opportunity for everyone to come inside the scheme.

Clause 21 gives the Statutory Committee power to examine the position of those employed in agriculture, to see whether it would be wise or not to bring them within the Bill. If this is going to be a comprehensive Measure—and it is going to be a comprehensive Measure—why not, at the same time, give to the Statutory Committee the power to examine other grades of workers, to see whether they cannot be brought in? I cannot see any reason why we cannot give that power to them. If they can prove to the House of Commons that such bodies of workers should or should not come in to the scheme, then, on that evidence, we shall be able to decide; but at least it will give us the opportunity of hearing whether or not they should come in. As it is, we are approached by people who say, "How is it that we cannot get the chance of coming in?" and, really, I cannot give an answer. All I say to them is, "You ought to be in, but at the moment we have not been able to get you in." Now we have the opportunity, when this Bill is being examined in all its features as to what it shall mean for the future. That being so, there is no reason why the House this afternoon should not include this Clause in the Bill, to give the Statutory Committee full power to examine the question.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I wish to support the plea which has been made in various parts of the House to the Minister to see his way to accept this Clause. There may well be some difference of opinion in the House with regard to the desirability of including paragraph (b), which relates to domestic servants. On that point, I think, there is some divergence of view; but with regard to paragraph (a), which deals with non-manual workers, I think that there is no difference of opinion in any part of the House. It is in no sense a party question. The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and some of his friends have given a good deal of attention to the problem of the non-manual or black-coated worker, and they are strong supporters of the reference of the question to the Statutory Committee for consideration.
When this Bill was first brought before the House, there was considerable uncertainty on two points with regard to the non-manual workers. The first point was
whether or not they desired as a class to he brought within the scope of the Bill. There is no doubt whatsoever on that subject to-day. Correspondence which has reached me from all parts of the country, from individuals and from the organised representatives of these people, leave no doubt that the great mass of them are anxious to be included in a scheme of this kind. The other point on which there was some uncertainty was whether or not the benefit of an insurance scheme would be of real value to them, and on that point the consultations which have taken place with the representatives of the non-manual workers make it clear that the benefits which they would obtain under the scheme would be of very real value and assistance to them. One is well aware of the fact that the moment you begin to make provision for the inclusion of a new class in a scheme, and particularly non-manual workers, one comes up against difficulties of the National Health Insurance scheme, with the contingent pension question which inevitably arises. There is, of course, as one must admit, a real administrative difficulty, but that is not a reason for not referring it to the Statutory Committee for their consideration.
A case has been abundantly made out, I think, for referring all these classes of labour to the Statutory Committee. If this Clause were accepted by the Minister, it does not mean that the Statutory Committee is absolutely bound to recommend that these workers should be included within an insurance scheme. It would be competent for the Committee to say that they should not be included, and to give their reasons. They might say that they should not be included in the insurance scheme, but might be brought within Part II. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), I think, made a special plea for the agricultural worker, and asked why they should be left out.

Mr. TINKER: No—that the Statutory Committee should have power to examine.

Mr. WHITE: That raises the point as to whether some of these classes might not be better left to come in under Part II. If I were an agricultural labourer, having followed the proceedings of this Bill with care, I should say that the best
thing which could happen to me would be that I should come under Part II, and receive satisfaction of my needs without contribution. The next best thing would be that I should be employed; and the third that I should be unemployed, and be under a contributory system of insurance. However, these are matters of speculation which I ought not, perhaps, to bring up in this way. But I have no doubt whatever that the Minister is sympathetic to what has been said this afternoon. He has already indicated his sympathy on previous occasions in the House, and I am sure he will do what is in his power.

4.13 p.m.

Major JESSON: May I associate myself with the remarks which have been made by various Members? I come from Lancashire, and represent a Division which has not benefited to any great extent by the improvement in employment. I have personal knowledge of many cases of real hardship, and, as has been said, these are an inarticulate class. They are a silent class, and they are a proud class, and they are being kept to-day simply by the charity of their neighbours and by those by whom they have been employed in the past. May I also add that those men who are within the range of £500 a year, when they lose their employment have very little chance of getting back into employment, as this is the age of youth. It has been said that people who get within the radius of £500 a year ought to be able to look after themselves, but we must not forget that they are committed to various expenses which those who have not such incomes have not to bear. By accepting this Clause the Minister is not committing himself to any definite scheme. It is only to be examined by the Statutory Committee, and I would say that, in the interest of this unfortunate class, the least we can do is to have their case thoroughly investigated.

4.15 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: Before the Minister replies, I should like to make a brief reference to what was said by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). He said that here at least was a proposal on which the Minister might be sure that the unanimous opinion of the House was on one side. Personally, however, I am
quite unconvinced that, certainly as regards three of the four categories mentioned in the Clause, it would be in the interest of the average person belonging to any of those categories to be insured. With regard, in the first place, to the £500 a year black-coated worker, the hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale (Major Jesson) has just said that, when these people with large salaries find themselves out of employment, it is almost impossible for them to get into employment again.
The logical conclusion from that is that they would benefit very little under the insurance scheme, and would very quickly come under transitional benefit. After the lapse of 26 weeks—a short time in what might be a long life—they would get no more benefit from the contributions they had made, and would only receive transitional payments through the Unemployment Assistance Committee. Every hon. Member who has spoken in the Debate has seemed to deal with this question as if it were a question of our giving away something to a very deserving and pathetic class, but it is nothing of the kind. We have to consider the average member of that class, and I should say that the average member of the black-coated fraternity, if he is a good clerk and has got his job at an early age, is practically secure of a job and is not liable to unemployment. People do not want to lose good clerks, and they always make shift somehow or other to keep them employed, even at limes when the demand for the goods they manufacture or the services they render is slack.
With regard to domestic servants, I think there is very little evidence at the present time that there is any great amount of unemployment. among domestic servants. I remember that there was a controversy many years ago as to whether they should be included or not, and that the proposal to include them was made on the ground that it would buttress the Insurance Fund and make sure that there would be one class at any rate who would contribute vastly more to the fund than they would draw out of it. It must be remembered that the inclusion of any class involves a weekly payment by the person employed and by his employer, as well as by the State. There are two sides to this ques-
tion, as to every other, and it is a very serious question. The House ought to consider whether it is quite certain that we should be conferring a boon or not upon a particular class by practically instructing the Statutory Committee to take such steps as may seem to them to be practicable at the earliest possible moment to include that class in the scheme.
Coming to the question of outworkers, their work is obviously work of a casual kind. They get employment at some times, and do not get it at others. It is nearly always done as additional work at home, and brings them in an additional income when they get it. It does not seem to me that they are a class of worker who can be considered to be in regular employment and to be a proper subject for insurance against unemployment. As regards share fishermen, of whom I have a great many in my constituency working salmon nets, my experience is that their work is seasonal work. Practically all of them would be regarded as seasonal workers, and I think that no class of workers are so badly treated as the seasonal workers are. Under the scheme as it is administered at present, if they are out of work out of the season they get nothing at all. They are only insured, really, for their short period of employment during the short season for which they are regularly at work. These men know that they can get work in the summer season, and that they can get large rewards when things are lucky. They know that during the winter they will have to find another job if they want one, and they choose that method of life. Such a provision as this would not really confer any benefit upon them. If it were a proposal to give them full benefit during the winter season, when they could not work, that would be another matter, but there is no means of doing so under the Bill; that is not the scheme. Therefore, on an occasion of this kind, when Members naturally come down who are interested mainly in one side of the question and have already been convinced, I do not want the Minister, in a very thin House, to be under the impression that there is anything like a unanimous opinion in the House as a whole on this question, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make his reply
on that basis, and not on the basis suggested by the hon. Member for Leigh.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I rise to support the Clause, lest silence on the part of my party might be misconstrued into antagonism, and I wish to associate those who work with me in supporting the Clause. I do not think I can add anything to what has been so ably said by others speakers of other parties. The greatest advantage that I can see from the granting of this concession in unemployment legislation would be, if I read the proposal aright, that it would include Members of this House in the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, and it would give a large proportion of them the opportunity of experiencing the operation of unemployment insurance, instead of merely talking about it. They would realise the privilege of standing in a queue; they would probably begin to understand the inadequacy of the accommodation that is provided at many Employment Exchanges; they would wonder whether walking down there, standing for an hour or two, and signing in a book two or three times a week, was not really worth more than the 17s. that came to them as the result of that effort at the end of the week. Many interesting lessons would be learned. I should be very interested to follow the efforts of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) in her endeavours to prove that she was not a married woman anomaly when she was applying for benefit. I really think that the operation of such a provision would be one of the most educative things that could possibly be done for the legislators of this country.
I will not enter into the rather difficult subject of good lives and bad lives, but it must be obvious to a very large proportion of those on the majority side in this House that, as politicians, their lives could not possibly be regarded as good lives. I do not think the point as to their genuinely seeking to be here would be brought in question, for I question very much whether a number of those who sit in this House will ever have the opportunity of working at this craft again; and there would have to be very stringent regulations, which I sup-
pose the Minister would see and submit to the next House, as to what was to happen when they had exhausted their full-time benefit. I can imagine some hon. Members objecting very strongly to the means test investigator coming round to their homes, and I can imagine very serious objections arising from, say, the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) if he were pushed into a work centre. On the other hand, I question very much whether the officer in charge of the centre would not have equally strong objections when he had had the hon. and learned Member for a week under his care. These are interesting considerations which arise on this proposed new Clause, and I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman has not considered them before, he will now regard them as an additional and very powerful reason for agreeing to this proposal.

4.27 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I confess that I am extremely glad that this Clause has been moved, for it has not only produced the very amusing speech to which we have just listened, but it has given me the opportunity of stating what I conceive to be the purpose and object of the National Unemployment Insurance scheme. I may say at once that I find myself very much in agreement with what was said by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) when he moved the Clause. My object is to see, if possible, that this scheme shall not merely be solvent, but that it shall, so far as possible, be a wide and comprehensive scheme, embracing ultimately large numbers of people who do not now fall within it. I will give in a moment my reasons for advising the House not to accept the Clause. It proposes that
The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, make such proposals as may seem to them practicable for the insurance against unemployment of persons employed"—
and then it goes on to specify certain categories. First of all there is the category which is known as that of the black-coated workers—those who receive salaries of not more than £500 a year. I can confirm from my own correspondence and from my own knowledge the truth of what has been said by many hon. Members, including the hon.
Member for Chester-le-Street and the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), that there are many very hard cases of men of that class who do not now fail within the scope of insurance, and many of whom are most anxious, if they can, to be included within it. It is quite true that there are many among these so-called black-coated workers who would be only too glad if they could be included in a scheme such as this. I do not want to discuss at this stage the difficulties, which are obvious, in the way of the inclusion in the scheme of those who are known as black-coated workers. Those difficulties were referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at an earlier stage of our discussions. The reason why I do not want to discuss them now is that I do not want to prejudice this matter when it ultimately comes before the Statutory Committee.
What I have said with regard to the first category mentioned in the Clause applies equally to the other categories, namely, domestic servants, outworkers, and share fishermen. There are obvious difficulties in these cases, and there are obvious reasons why none of these classes should be included. But I do not want to examine them because I want the matter, when it comes before the Statutory Committee, to be examined on its merits and, as it were, afresh. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street pointed out that all these classes were the subject of consideration by the Royal Commission, which he said did not have time to consider them on their merits. One of the great advantages of having this Statutory Committee as a permanent statutory body will be that we can refer to it questions such as these and any others which seem to the Minister to be cases that should be considered. Of course, these four cases mentioned in the proposed Clause are not in the least comprehensive. I have heard representations made, for instance, that the insurance scheme should be so enlarged as to provide for voluntary insurance of classes which are not now included. I express no opinion upon the merits of such a proposal. I only state that such a proposal has been made, and it may be that it and others should be submitted to the Statutory Committee.
Another proposal which has been made has much to commend it—whether practicable
or not at the moment I offer no opinion. It is that, if you have a great comprehensive insurance scheme like this, it ought not to be beyond the wit of man to devise an arrangement under which those who have years of contributions to their credit should at a certain age either get benefit by way of pensions or some advantage very much upon the lines of the system that prevails with insurance companies where you are entitled to a bonus if no claim is made. Again, I offer no comment at this stage, except to say that that is a proposal which has been seriously made. I do not know if it has been made in the House, but it has been made outside.
My reason for asking the House not to accept a new Clause which asks that the Statutory Committee shall as soon as may be after the passing of the Act go into these matters is that under the Bill as drawn they have already allotted to them certain specific duties which they have to perform at once. First of all, they have to make a report with regard to the finances of the scheme. Secondly, they have to go into the question of the insurance of agriculture. Thirdly, they have, under Clause 2, to consider the question of borderline cases which I think really need looking into. Anomalies exist; for instance, the anomaly of pithead bath attendants who are insured if they are paid by the colliery company but not if they are paid from the Welfare Fund. I do not want to overload the work of the Committee by making it a statutory obligation to go into these other questions at once. But I give this undertaking, which I have been asked to give, that the matter will not only have my most sympathetic consideration, but that I will do all that I can to ensure, as soon as it is possible, that these and any other cases have the full consideration of the Committee. We shall then be in a position to pass an opinion in the House as to whether this, that or the other class ought to be included in the scheme.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The Minister's last statement was rather unfortunate in view of the almost unanimous desire of those who have spoken that the proposed Clause should be accepted by the Government. We recognise the difficulties that stand in the way of the Statutory Com-
mittee looking into the matter. It is true that certain functions and duties have been imposed upon them right away, and they will have, I expect, to be undertaken immediately after the Committee is appointed and holds its first meeting. But that, after all, is looking after something which has already been placed in the Bill and which is a part of the duties that fall to them under the Clauses of the Bill. I take it that the proposed Clause is not to. be construed as asking that the Statutory Committee immediately upon its appointment should consider the things that are in it. The words are "as soon as may be" after the Committee is set up. That might well be taken to mean that the more immediate things which are already indicated, and things which the Minister may have in his mind but which are not in the Bill, might be considered first. Consequently, I do not think there is very much justification for the Minister declining the Clause because it is to be looked upon that these are to be among the very first matters to be considered.
The difficulties which he mentioned, and which were referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in the Debate, as standing in the way of the so-called black-coated worker being included are difficulties which are only there for a strong Government, such as this Government claims to be, to surmount. After all, if a Government with the largest majority within this century and, I think, within the memory of any living politician are not sufficiently strong to overcome the difficulties of the £500 a year black-coated worker, they ought to hand in their resignations and call for a new election. The difficulties in that respect are no more insurmountable than those which arise in some of the other Departments and which are brought before us periodically and actually decided upon and overcome by Members of the House.
I am surprised that no one from the fishing areas has taken up the question of the share fishermen. There are difficulties arising there mainly, I should imagine, due to the fact that share fishermen are largely so unrepresented that evidence could only be taken from certain small areas and small groups of the men. Were the matter submitted to the Statutory Committee, they could go into
the question of the share fishermen, as well as the other categories, in detail and endeavour to overcome the difficulty. They would have plenty of time, much more than we have, because they would not be confined, as we are, by a Guillotine Motion which descends upon us in the middle of a Debate and prevents some questions being considered at all, and they are the proper body to which to remit these matters for a decision.
The Minister threw out a rather hopeful hint that he would give sympathetic consideration—that hackneyed phrase so often used by Ministers—to the suggestion. I hope that that sympathetic consideration will materialise in action, because he has admitted that he has received large numbers of letters, I take it from constituents who are black-coated workers and who are desirous of being brought within the scheme. With regard to his suggestion of the bonus system, that would be simply getting back to the system that prevailed some years ago where employed workers who had had a good run of employment, with a large number of stamps to their credit, on passing out of insurance were paid what was practically a bonus. The system fell out of existence about 1924 or 1925. To adopt a bonus system would be to get back to something which has been abandoned by successive Governments. With regard to the point as to good lives, when the scheme was started there were between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 insured people. The percentage was very small, and it was estimated, when the scheme was first placed before the House, that it would be possible to carry it on a 4d. for 9d. basis, and it was carried on for quite a number of years. The small percentage of unemployed were to receive a high scale of benefit because of the large percentage of good lives that were in the scheme. It is the same in every scheme. It is the good lives in all insurance schemes which are paying for those which are looked upon as the bad lives.
At the present time, because we have had such a long period of unemployment, a very large number of trades, which, in the original conception of unemployment insurance in this House, were looked upon as carrying or likely to carry, a very small percentage of unemployment, are now carrying huge percentages of unemployment. In some dis-
tricts where insured workers in these trades were looked upon as having a large percentage of good lives and a small percentage of bad lives, 53 per cent. of the workers are unemployed. From that point of view you have a change in the manner of looking at the position with regard to the so-called good lives as against the bad lives in the insurance scheme, and you have the demand which is being made for the inclusion of domestic servants and for the £500 a year black-coated workers. There is the demand for a number of additional good lives to be brought into the scheme to benefit those who are looked upon as the lower-paid workers, and, therefore, more susceptible to unemployment at the present time than any other class of the community.
I submit that that is trying to prejudice the whole case and to prejudice calm judgment on the matter. If we are to have the question of insurance looked at from the point of view of what is a good life and what is a bad life the Statutory Committee is the body to do it with calmness. They can do it without any party prejudices, and, I hope, without any class prejudices, and at least without any guillotine to curtail the discussions and force them to a decision without being able to give the matter the calm consideration that it ought to receive. I regret very much that the Minister of Labour, despite his promise of sympathetic consideration, cannot see his way to accept the new Clause, and we must therefore divide the House upon the matter.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: There seems to be a general desire that something of the effect of the proposed Clause should be incorporated in the Bill. The Minister seemed to be sympathetic towards the idea. He has told us that, if in due time the Committee can find time, it will give consideration to the matter. The point which occurs to me is whether the Bill as now drafted would give the Statutory Committee the power to do so, or whether there would not have to be some Amendment of the Bill in order to give the Committee the power if it was thought desirable that it should be done.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: On the Committee stage of this Bill an Amendment was
put down in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, somewhat similar to a part of the provisions contained in this Clause. It was to ensure the examination by the Statutory Committee of the case for insurance of share fishermen. It was discussed along with various other Amendments, and finally I withdrew it, after having had what I thought was a fairly satisfactory explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.
I do not propose to support the Clause that has been put down by hon. Members of the Opposition for this reason. I believe that the Minister has given what should be a perfectly satisfactory declaration to the House with regard to this particular matter. The share fishermen, for instance, are suffering from very bad times, as we all know, in common with other workers mentioned in the Clause. They are covered under Part II of the Bill, but a great many of them feel—and I feel with them—that their case should receive very careful consideration at the hands of the Statutory Committee. I feel that those fishermen should receive consideration at the earliest possible moment. We know, however, as the Minister and various other speakers have pointed out, that the Statutory Committee are going to have their hands very full, and it must be remembered that they are a new body to be set up. I do not think that it would be wise in the national interest to overburden that body too much immediately. Therefore, I feel that the House would be unreasonable not to accept the declaration of the Minister that he will do his utmost to see that the Statutory Committee give all those workers mentioned in the new Clause their earnest consideration at the earliest possible moment. I do not think that we could ask for more. It is not reasonable to ask for more, but we should at least be satisfied in our own minds—and I am satisfied—that as soon as possible the Committee will examine these various cases and take into consideration all the material facts connected with them. With the declaration of the Minister, therefore, I am perfectly satisfied, and I hope that the House will also join in resisting the proposed Clause.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I do not intend to repeat any of the arguments
which have been used from any part of the House this afternoon. We have had the first fruits of this type of legislation in the statement of the Minister. The Minister says that, owing to the fact that this matter may be discussed by the Statutory Advisory Committee, the House of Commons is now to be deprived of the opinion of His Majesty's Ministers upon it. This is the first time that such a thing has ever happened in the history of the British House of Commons. We have now a vast Government Department for which we are paying enormous sums of money. We have a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary who are now merely puppets, and, in fact, a wanton and unjustifiable extravagance to the State. The right hon. Gentleman gets up at that Box and says, "I am not going to provide the House of Commons with any information stored up in my department. I am going to withhold from the House of Commons the accumulated wisdom of the permanent officials in my Department. I am not going to provide them with any guide or lead, because it might prejudice the Statutory Advisory Committee." The consequence therefore is that, before the matter is referred to the Statutory Advisory Committee, we do not get the Minister's opinion, and after it comes back from the Statutory Advisory Committee we do not get it, because then he will say : "This matter has been considered by the body set up by this House, and it is unnecessary for me to argue it at all." Therefore, neither at the beginning of this legislation nor at the end of it, do we have the benefit of the opinion of the Minister. I hope that if this is going to be a permanent feature of our constitution, the Prime Minister will not waste upon the Ministry of Labour a right hon. Gentleman of such high merit and outstanding qualities as the one who at present occupies the office. He had better put his biggest dud into the job.

Mr. MAXTON: There are plenty of them.

Mr. BEVAN: My hon. Friend suggests that the Prime Minister is well provided with that type of person both in the Government and among his followers in the House of Commons. I should like to adduce one consideration which has
not been mentioned up to now in the course of the Debate. Unless the Statutory Advisory Committee or the Government immediately proceed to bring this thing under Part I of this Bill, the whole scheme of Unemployment Insurance in Great Britain, and indeed, the whole structure of the Bill, will be badly unbalanced. As I understand it, many of the people referred to in the Amendment are not under Part I, and, because they are not under Part I, they are not under Part II. The result is that you will have a very extraordinary state of affairs, which, if continued for long, will disturb the whole structure of this piece of legislation. You will have local authorities responsible for paying out public assistance to men who are debarred from Part I of this Bill.
If the Minister will give me his attention, I am endeavouring to point out how very urgent it is that we should put this matter right as soon as possible. At the moment there are four categories of able-bodied unemployed people in Great Britain, and a fifth category will come into being. The fifth category will be those able-bodied persons in need of assistance who will not be under Part I, and, because they are not under Part I, will not be under Part II, and will therefore have to receive assistance at the hands of the public assistance authority. There may be living next door to each other two men receiving assistance from unemployment assistance officers set up by the board. You will have two families in exactly similar circumstances, one receiving the allowance from State funds, and the other receiving public assistance from the local rates, and they may be treated very differently. Therefore, you will have grave feeling arising in consequence. If the amount given by the public assistance authority is more than the amount given by the unemployment assistance officers, it will bring the State into disrepute, and, vice versa, it will bring the local authority into disrepute. You may have very high feeling created and the local authorities put into a very difficult position.
As the House is aware, I am profoundly opposed to the Bill, but if you are going to have this sort of legislation it should be properly rounded off, and all able-bodied poor people should be brought under the scheme. You should not leave
some under the local authority and some under the board. It is because of that consideration, as well as many others which have been urged, that I ask the Minister of Labour to accept the new-Clause, which would impose the obligation upon the committee to bring the recommendation before us at the earliest possible moment. If the claim of the Government is to be justified, that the burden of maintaining able-bodied poor has been taken off the local authorities, you ought not to leave this class still chargeable to the local rates. In some constituencies there will be a considerable number of people so affected, and in other constituencies there will not be so many. It is unfair that a local authority in one area should be asked to discharge an obligation from which another local authority is entirely exempt because such a class of persons does not exist in their area at all. Because of those reasons, I think that the Minister is making a mistake in not accepting the Clause which has been put down in the names of my hon. Friends belonging to the Opposition. I enter my strong protest against this mummification of His Majesty's Ministers in this House.

5 p.m.

Mr. LOFTUS: There is one special plea that I should like to make to the Minister. I accept his assurance that these cases will be inquired into by the Statutory Committee, but I submit that the case of the share fishermen might well receive priority, for two reasons. The first reason is, that the share fishermen were nearly included in 1921, but they were opposed to their inclusion because of the false optimism of the boom after the War. To-day, however, so far as I can discover from personal inquiry, they are unanimous in their desire to be included at the earliest possible moment in Unemployment Insurance. I believe that in their case the difficulties could be overcome. I recognise the difficulties appertaining to the black-coated workers with salaries up to £500 a year, and domestic servants. Those difficulties will take up a great deal of time and involve a great deal of inquiry and therefore delay, but I do plead that the case

of the share fishermen shall receive very early consideration. These men did good service in the War, and many of them to-day are in receipt of poor relief. They deserve special attention not only because of their war service, but owing to the fact that they are a small body and that it will take very little time to examine their case. I hope that early consideration will be given to them.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would ask the Minister to consider one point. Under the new Clause special reference is made to people who, for lack of another word, are called the black-coated workers. I should like to point out that at the present time there are black-coated workers within the unemployment insurance law who contract out. Corporation and other municipal employés are among the worst offenders in regard to contracting out. The right hon. Gentleman ought to stop contracting out now. We cannot have black-coated workers demanding to come in because they think they are bad lives, while other black-coated workers are demanding to come out of unemployment insurance because they are good lives. The black-coated workers must go in, like the engineers, or stay out. There is one case where 2,000 employés are asking to contract out, Corporation employés, and one trade union at least is supporting them in contracting out. We cannot have trade unions supporting people in contracting out, and then have trade unionists coming here and asking that this class of people should be allowed to contract in. They should all be in. At the moment the right hon. Gentleman would do well to stop all the contracting out that is going on. Everybody should be brought within the scheme. If the Minister cannot agree to that now, I do hope that no one will be allowed to go outside the scheme until a new scheme has been set up to bring in the black-coated workers who are now out.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided : Ayes, 60; Noes, 258.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Arrangements with the Board of Education.)

For the purpose of facilitating the effective exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the Minister in relation thereto, the Minister may make arrangements with the Board of Education respecting the provision, inspection, and supervision of authorised courses, and the powers and duties of the Minister may, under any such arrangements, be exercised and performed by the board on behalf of the Minister and with his authority under such conditions as he may think fit.—[Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposal is founded on Section 16 of the Education Act of 1921, under which, in regard to school medical services, arrangements were made by which the Board of Education can act in the place of the Minister of Health. It will be remembered that under the Bill certain juvenile classes are set up and, therefore,
we think that the Board of Education should have some jurisdiction in the regard to them. There is no doubt that the Board of Education will come in and co-operate with the Minister of Labour, and it is much better that it should be provided for in the Bill. I hope the Minister will accept the proposal.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Motion.
If the Clause cannot be accepted in its entirety, I think it is essential that we should lay down some such provision, so that these courses, which we hope will be an increasing success in the future, will become part of our method of dealing with the unemployment question. There should be the closest possible co-operation between the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Education. I have always considered the Ministry of Labour as rather an unnecessary luxury, but the Board of Education is an efficient body which does help the national cause. For that reason, I should be glad to see the Board of Education take over and run some of these instructional centres. There is this further point, that most of these juveniles will have been under the Board of Education for a considerable number of years, and the proposed new Clause would, therefore, give continuity in their education, which is very valuable. For that reason, because it gives continuity and would, therefore, make for greater efficiency, I hope the Minister will accept it. It would mean co-ordination, at least it would mean co-ordination under the present Government. Under the late Government we should simply have got into a muddle. Under the present Government you will get co-ordination, in the best interests of the classes themselves.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. LECKIE: I hope that the Minister will favourably consider this new Clause. It would be a great advantage if the Minister of Labour could arrange to hand over this work entirely to the Board of Education. After all, the Board of Education are familiar with it. If that is not done, I am certain there will be overlapping and loss of efficiency. This is an opportunity for the Government to provide something which is really desired by educationists all over the country.

5.30 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): This new Clause has brought the Board of Education into the limelight, and the House will forgive me, therefore, if I say a few words about it. The Board of Education is not insensible to the compliment implied in the new Clause, and on occasions the Board of Education is not unwilling to have greatness thrust upon it. But this is one of the exceptions, and I will shortly give the reasons. The new Clause is in some respects similar to an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) in Committee, an Amendment which aimed at giving the Board genuine and definite responsibility for these educational centres. If I may say so without any disrespect to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte), if I had to choose between the two Amendments I should prefer that of the hon. Member for Aberavon. In fact, I could not accept that Amendment and the Committee rejected it. This new Clause is much more nebulous and would involve possibly very considerable administrative difficulties. Broadly speaking, if it were passed, it would leave responsibility for the scheme as a whole with the Minister of Labour, but it would allow the most important of all his powers and duties to be exercised by the Board of Education, acting as agents of the Ministry of Labour. How those powers are to be exercised or how much of them is to be exercised it is impossible to tell from the wording of this new Clause.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton drew an analogy between this Clause and the second paragraph of Section 16 of the Education Act, which establishes relations between the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education. It is true that the Board does act as agent for the Ministry of Health for school medical services, but there is really no sound analogy between those functions and what is proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend here. Those medical services can be and are administered as a self-contained service. We have control of the children in the schools for nine years, for their school life. Obviously it is natural and indeed essential that that service should be administered by us.
But it seems to me that that would not be the case with the juvenile instruction centres where the emphasis is on something quite different, namely, conditions relating to employment or unemployment. For that reason it would be quite fallacious to draw any analogy between the arrangements for school medical services and those suggested in the new Clause.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: But the whole object of education is to fit children in every way for the job of life. Surely the Board of Education, working with the Ministry of Labour, might be able to take on certain of these instruction centres as a direct sequence, say in a very bad area, from the schools themselves?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: All the cooperation that the Ministry of Labour requires for the purpose will be afforded. It seems to me that in this matter one Department should be definitely responsible. The position of the Board would be most unsatisfactory under a Clause of this kind. The Clause would obviously involve serious difficulties of administration and policy, and might even compromise the exceedingly good relations which now exist between the two Departments. I am sure the House would desire the Ministry of Labour to have full responsibility in this matter on the question of policy. There is the point that I mentioned in Committee, that this service is closely connected with employment and unemployment, not only existing but prospective. The Board of Education is not qualified to deal with such matters as the establishment of junior instruction centres, on which the Ministry of Labour is expert. Thirdly, the attendance at junior instruction centres must be bound up to some extent with procedure with regard to obtaining employment benefit. There the Minister of Labour is obviously the authority and he should not delegate his functions.
The new Clause suggests that the Board of Education should make arrangements respecting the provision and supervision of authorised courses. Obviously that should come under the Ministry of Labour, which is responsible for the finance. Under this Clause no financial responsibility is delegated to the Board of Education. If it were, the Board
might well have responsibility for the whole scheme. "Arrangements.… respecting the supervision of authorised courses" is a very vague term. Supervision covers a multitude of sins. We have no guidance in the new Clause as to what the types of duty should be. The Board is asked to make arrangements with regard to inspection. There I can say definitely that the Board will, of course, assist the Ministry of Labour, and it seems to me that that is where the best kind of co-operation by the Board can be exercised. Our inspectors have definite qualifications for the purpose and will be placed at the disposal of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. In that way the fullest and most satisfactory co-operation will be secured between the two Departments. For the reasons that I have stated I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton will substitute co-operation for delegation in his mind and wishes, because in the circumstances I think that co-operation is the best way of carrying out what he desires.

5.37 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I must say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education has been singularly unconvincing in his arguments against acceptance of responsibility by the Board of Education. It is not my job to defend the drafting of a new Clause brought forward by three supporters of the National Government. When it comes to finding fault with the arguments put forward in support of the Clause I am afraid that I must fundamentally disagree with the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that he is responsible to this House for education, and that the whole work of education should be his job under his supervision, and, if I may pay him the compliment, also under his inspiration. According to its light the Ministry of Labour does its work extraordinarily well, but its job, its technique, is not education. It has not the staff for that purpose; it has not the organisation; it has not the machinery and inspectors. But from a practical point of view, from my own knowledge of the junior training classes which have been working more or less successfully for some years, it would be a tremendous advantage if the staff, buildings and
machinery were under the inspection of the Board of Education.
It may not be within the knowledge of the Parliamentary Secretary that the vast majority of these classes are in buildings under the local education authorities. Nearly all the teachers, especially the head teachers, are lent by the education authorities for the purpose. There are certain difficulties about that because, as he knows, the question of superannuation comes in when they are lent for another purpose for carrying out the provisions of Unemployment Insurance. When a teacher is lent for a purpose of carrying out that particular job all sorts of difficulties come up about his status as an educationist and as to superannuation.
But there is a second and perhaps more practical difficulty, from the point of view of the trainees. There is in existence all over the country a lot of training classes for able-bodied unemployed. They are inherited from the old Poor Law; they are the direct children of the old Poor Law schools and the old machinery under the Poor Law. In the past most of the training centres were worked in connection with workhouses. Since they have been taken over by county councils most of the classes have been under men trained in the old workhouse tradition. In London one of the great difficulties in organising for adults the vast machinery of training centres during the last two years has been the hostility of the men concerned because of the Poor Law traditions.
I want to be fair to the Ministry of Labour. To its credit it tried to co-operate with the local education authorities. At any rate I can speak with some knowledge of London. In so far as the two have co-operated, the classes have on the whole worked smoothly. But there is the other side of the picture. In the case of public assistance under the Ministry of Health there has not been that co-operation, and the spirit of the adult training classes has been the Poor Law spirit, the spirit of test work, and the atmosphere has been foreign to the people concerned. These classes should be inspired by the spirit associated with the education authorities. They should be educational and not penal. They should not be used as a form of test work, but rather in order to train and
develop and encourage these young people who find themselves out of employment and are anxious to get back to work again.

Mr. HUDSON: I can give the hon. Member that assurance.

Sir P. HARRIS: What assurance?

Mr. HUDSON: The assurance that the hon. Member has asked for.

Sir P. HARRIS: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is quite able to make a speech and perhaps he will make clear to what assurance he refers. I want these classes to be education classes, not under the aegis of the Ministry of Labour, but under the Board of Education. Then we shall be certain that they will really be educational and will have the same character and form as ordinary continuation schools; but if they are left to the machinery of the Ministry of Labour there is a real danger that the new authority may staff them with men from the Poor Law institutions and may use the centres not so much for educational purposes as to give them the form and character of test work. I do not particularly like the character of the proposed new Clause, but it represents the principle which we are after, and for that reason I shall support it.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I find it extremely difficult to understand what the proposed new Clause means, but it shows a glimmer of light as to what is really required in regard to these children. We welcome it in so far as it shows that there are sections of Members behind the Government who are becoming uneasy about the junior instruction centres and the activities of the Ministry of Labour in relation to these children. I gather from an interjection by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that even he is becoming concerned as to whether these children would be better off under the Ministry of Labour or under the Board of Education. I have the impression that supporters of the Govermen are now feeling more and more that the Ministry of Labour is not the Ministry which ought to have charge of these children, but that, in order that the children should have the best educational facilities, it is necessary that they should come under the Board of Education.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I do not go into the question of whether one Ministry or the other is the better. They are both excellent departments but I think that in certain circumstances I would like to see the Board of Education having fuller play in this matter.

Mr. COVE: I am more than ever confused as to what the hon. Member really wants. He has not clarified the position but I take it that he has at least reached a half-way house and is anxious that at any rate, some of these children should be under the Board of Education. But we all know that such a proposal as this would be administratively impossible. If hon. Members look at the new Clause they will see that it still leaves the children under the Ministry of Labour—that the ultimate authority in the matter would still be that Ministry, and the Board of Education would merely be its agent. I hold to the view that that would be a most undignified position for the Board of Education to occupy. I object to the Ministry of Labour having power to determine this matter. I moved an Amendment in Committee which was designed to throw the whole responsibility for educating these children upon the Board of Education. We on this side take the clear, logical and practical view that that would be better for the children and would be administratively possible, for the Board of Education to have complete control over these centres and complete jurisdiction over the children between 14 and 16.
The new Clause if carried would only confuse the situation and I do not believe that it could be carried out. Nevertheless it is as I say evidence of the fact that some light is penetrating the minds of hon. Members opposite. We are willing to support them in their struggling efforts to see the light and we shall be delighted to offer the hon. and gallant Member opposite, and his Friends who have so suddenly become interested in the educational side of these children's lives, an opportunity of declaring their opinion in the Division Lobby. I dare not venture to speak for my own party on all occasions but on this occasion, although a humble backbencher, I think I can speak for all my colleagues in saying that we are delighted to find this glimmer of light among hon. Members opposite. We shall be glad to fan it
into full flame. We shall therefore invite the hon. and gallant Member and his Friends to go with us—in pleasant company and with most enlightened people, educationally—into the Division Lobby in support of the new Clause.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The proposed new Clause which has been moved on behalf of the County Councils Association has at least done one thing. It has drawn from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the information that the board's inspectors will be at the disposal of the Ministry of Labour for the inspection of these courses. I am glad to hear that that is to be so, although I agree to a certain extent with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) that dual control in this matter is dangerous. Nothing is said in Clause 14 of the Bill as to supervision and inspection and to my mind nothing is more more important than that there should be efficient supervision and inspection of these courses. Of the courses that exist, some we know are good, but when we consider the fact that boys and girls from 14 to 18 will be attending these courses and that the teaching of young people between those ages is very difficult we must realise that a sufficient and efficient staff will be necessary and that the inspection of the courses ought to be thorough. This is an experiment. We hope that it will be successful but there are grave difficulties, and if the experiment does not succeed it will be a strong argument for raising the school age to 15. In view of the information given by the Parliamentary Secretary I think the position has been considerably relieved.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: I only intervene because of the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). Some of us on this side have refrained from intervening in these discussions, while opponents of the Government have spoken freely, but there is a point at which it is difficult to refrain from replying and I feel bound, especially when the hen. Member talks as he has talked about going to a Division upon this New Clause, to make this point. I think the hon. Member is confusing education with something else. A mass of difficulties attaches to the education of children be-
tween 11 and 15. There is the question of the dignity and status of schools, the question of areas and so forth, and it is the duty of the education authorities to grapple with those difficulties. But the matter which we are considering now is primarily connected with employment. To confuse this problem with the problem of education would be to spoil our real chances of that educational advance, which I want just as much as the hon. Member for Aberavon. It is not a question of seeing the light at all. I am just as purblind now—from the point of view of the hon. Member for Aberavon—as I was before his speech.
The Chelmsford Report and other reports have dealt with this question, and the existing arrangement has been worked out in close co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education. In some cases it is the Board of Education which runs the show, and in some cases it is the Ministry of Labour—for very definite reasons in each case and the arrangement is working well all over the country. But as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, there is a strong reason for connecting the junior instruction centres with employment and with the recruitment of labour and it is for that reason and that reason only, that we on this side would not dream of supporting this New Clause or the more comprehensive Amendment moved at an earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill by the hon. Member for Aberavon. If the hon. and gallant Member who puts forward this New Clause has done so for other reasons, if he and other hon. Members would like to see the school-age raised, that is another question, but when we are dealing with junior instruction centres we must have regard to the fact that the whole weight of experience and the evidence, from the Chelmsford Report onwards, goes to prove that the present method is the best method of tackling the problem.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I find it difficult to follow the arguments of the last speaker. I think it is true that those who are conducting these junior instruction centres must have in mind to some extent the ultimate form of employment to be followed by those receiving instruction
but, primarily, the centres are to be for the purpose of giving instruction to these young people during periods of unemployment. For my part, I frankly admit that there are difficulties attaching to the scheme. A person who attends a junior instruction centre may attend there for a week, or a month or two months—no one can tell how long—and it is therefore difficult to adumbrate a definite course of instruction for a given period of time in each case. I acknowledge that difficulty, but this question still arises. If you are going to set up instruction centres, which organisation ought to be primarily responsible for them, the Ministry of Labour or the Board of Education? I think this is clearly the job, not of the Ministry of Labour but of the Board of Education. I admit that the Minister of Labour would like to provide as good a form of education as is possible within the limits of his opportunities, but after all, it is not the function of his Department. His Department does not specialise in education. It is not their duty.
The education of young people at this period of life is not a simple matter. It requires particular attention and consideration, and I think that those who are engaged from day to day in dealing with educational problems are entitled to a final opinion upon this question. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education mentioned that the board's inspectors would be available to supervise what is being done in these centres. I have some knowledge of the work of the inspectors, and the conditions under which it is done, and I would not derogate at all from the excellence of that work. But if this duty is not part of their normal work associated with the board, the tendency will be to regard it as secondary in importance to their other duties. I recall a parallel case. I speak from memory and subject to correction, but I think I am right in saying that certain schools under the control of the Home Office are inspected on behalf of the Home Office by inspectors of the Board of Education. I have no doubt that they do that quite honestly and conscientiously, but the effect of it, I think, is still what I submit would be the case here, namely, that inspection of the Home Office schools, not
being part and parcel of their day-to-day task, tends to become rather secondary.
May I put this further point? Inspectors of the Board of Education will inspect these centres. What effect will that inspection have? Can they make recommendations, and what authority will their recommendations have with the Minister of Labour? When an inspector of the Board of Education reports upon a school within the ambit of the board's normal work, that is automatically attended to, but I wonder what measure of acceptance an adverse report upon the educational character of the service given in a junior instruction centre would have with the Minister of Labour in these conditions. I submit those points because I fear that the Parliamentary Secretary has not seized the real feeling that there is in this House upon this question. If there is anything at all to justify setting up these instructional centres. that very fact justifies the Board of Education accepting responsibility for them educationally.
I have said that nobody can give so good a type of guidance in this matter on educational grounds as can the Board of Education. It is an expert job. You cannot have inexpert minds applying themselves to it, and the job of carrying through an important piece of educational work within a given and limited period of time is more an expert job than is the task of spreading educational effort over a much longer period of time. Therefore, I submit still to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education that he really has not met the gravamen of our case, namely, that the very nature of the task which these instruction centres involve is of so delicate and expert a character that only the Board of Education itself could discharge it efficiently.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. WHITE: I do not rise to continue the Debate but to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he will be good enough to enlighten the House with regard to the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) asked for information, namely, as to whether teachers who may leave a school in order to take up work in these autho-
rised courses or juvenile instruction centres are prejudiced in their pension rights by so doing. I know that many of the instructors in these centres do not have any pension rights, and that creates a difficulty in obtaining the best type of man for this type of instruction. I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will clear up that point. I will just add that we, on these benches, are in entire accord with what has been said by the last speaker, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). We regret that all this work by people up to the age of 18 should not have remained under the control and guidance of the Board of Education. Still, having regard to the fact that this Is an Education Bill, which potentially raises the school leaving age to 18 for a very large number of people, it is obvious that there should be the closest co-operation between the two Departments.

Mr. COVE: Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer the question about superannuation?

6.6 p.m.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Certificated teachers do not lose any superannuation rights by being employed in junior instruction centres or classes. Service in these courses by such teachers or teachers leaving training colleges is recognised for superannuation purposes in exactly the same way as service in ordinary schools.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. COVE: Am I not right in assuming that those teachers who come directly out of a training college without previous experience in any form of State education service do not come under the superannuation provisions—that there is a gap there? I should like that point to be looked into.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I will certainly look into it, as I cannot say at the moment whether that is so or not.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: In view of my hon. Friend's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my proposed new Clause.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided : Ayes, 56; Noes, 271.

Division No. 229.]
AYES.
[5.6 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cape, Thomas
Daggar, George


Batey, Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cove, William G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Dobble, William


Buchanan, George
Curry, A. C.
Edwards, Charles


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Kirkwood, David
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams. David (Swansea, East)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maxton, James
Wilmot, John


Harris, Sir Percy
Owen, Major Goronwy
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Healy, Cahir
Parkinson, John Allen
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hicks, Ernest George
Pickering, Ernest H.



Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Locker-Lampson. Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Erskine. Lord (Weston-super-Mars)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Albery, Irving James
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C.(Blackpool)
Mabane, William


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Atholl, Duchess of
Fermoy, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S.


Balniel, Lord
Fuller, Captain A. G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Ganzonl, Sir John
McKle, John Hamilton


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Barnays, Robert
Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gledhill, Gilbert
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Bllndell, James
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Magnay, Thomas


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Glyn. Major Ralph G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Goldie, Noel B.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Brass, Captain Sir William
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Martin. Thomas B.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gower, Sir Robert
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Milne, Charles


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gunsten, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chlsw'k)


Buchan-Hepburn. P. G. T.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mclson. A. Hugh Elsdale


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hales, Harold K.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hanbury, Cecil
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Carver, Major William H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Moss, Captain H. J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Muirhead, Lieut. Colonel A. J.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Munro, Patrick


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nicholson. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
Nunn, William


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hepworth, Joseph
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leotric
Hornby, Frank
Palmer, Francis Noel


Christie, James Archibald
Horsbrugh, Florence
Patrick, Colin M.


Clarke, Frank
Howard, Tom Forrest
Peake, Captain Osbert


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pearson, William Q.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Peat, Charles U.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hunter. Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Penny, Sir George


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Percy, Lord Eustace


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romt'd)
Petherick, M.


Cook. Thomas A.
Jamleson, Douglas
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cooke, Douglas
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Cooper, A. Duff
Ker, J. Campbell
Pike, Cecil F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Radford, E. A.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Knight, Holford
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Crookshank. Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cross, R. H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Crossley, A. C.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Law. Sir Alfred
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leckie, J. A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Denville, Alfred
Leech. Dr. J. W.
Rickards, George William


Dickie, John p.
Leighton. Major B. E. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross Taylor. Walter (Woodbridge)


Eady, George H.
Levy, Thomas
Runge, Norah Cecil


Eales, John Frederick
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Eden, Robert Anthony
Liddall, Walter S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock;
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield. B'tslds)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Llewellin, Major John J.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Eimley, viscount
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)




Salmon, Sir Isldore
Storey, Samuel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Strickland, Captain W. F,
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Savery, Samuel Servington
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Scone, Lord
Summersby, Charles H.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sutellffe, Harold
Wells, Sydney Richard


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Tate, Mavis Constane
Weymouth, Viscount


Shute, Colonel J. J.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (p'dd'gt'n, S.)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Templeton, William P.
Whyte, Jardlne Bell


Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertfd)


Somervell, Sir Donald
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Wise, Alfred R.


Soper, Richard
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Withers, Sir John James


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Southby, Commander Archibald F. J
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Womersley, Walter James


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)



Steventon, James
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stones, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Captain Austin Hudson and Major




George Davies.

Division No. 230.]
AYES.
[6.8 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingslay (Middlesbro', W.)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tiss)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Healy, Cahir
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jonas, Morgan (Caerphilly)
White, Henry Graham


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John Jamas
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dobbia, William
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Edwards. Charlas
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valantine L.



Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maxton, James.





NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dickle, John P.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kansington, N.)
Ker, J. Campbell


Albery, Irving James
Eady, George H.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Eastwood, John Francis
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Atholl, Duchess of
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Elmley, Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leckle, J. A.


Beaumont. Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mars)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bernays, Robert
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Levy, Thomas


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Evarard, W. Lindsay
Lewis, Oswald


Blindell, James
Ford. Sir Patrick J.
Liddall, Walter S.


Bossom, A. C.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Llewellin, Major John J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Brass, Captain Sir William
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Goldie, Noel B.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gower, Sir Robert
McKie, John Hamilton


Buchan Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslle
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hen. John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W,
Magnay, Thomas


Carver, Major William H.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hales, Harold K.
Margesson, Capt Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hanbury, Cecil
Martin, Thomas B.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hartland, George A.
Mayhaw, Lieut.-Colonel John


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leotric
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Christie, James Archibald
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Clarke, Frank
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Milne, Charles


Clarry, Reginald George
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbart M.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hepworth, Joseph
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hornby, Frank
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Colfox, Major William Philip
Horsbrugh, Florence
Morelng, Adrian C.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfray
Howard, Tom Forrest
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Colvllie, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Cook, Thomas A.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Cooke, Douglas
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Munro, Patrick


Crooke, J. smedley
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hurd, Sir Percy
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Cross, R. H.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wllfrid


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Nunn, William


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jamleson, Douglas
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Denville, Alfred
Jonas, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Palmer, Francis Noel




Patrick, Colin M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Peake, Captain Osbert
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Pearson, William G.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Peat, Charles U.
Scone, Lord
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Penny, Sir George
Selley, Harry R.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Petherick, M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Pike, Cecil F.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sinclair, Cot. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)


Radford, E. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smith, Louls W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Somervell, Sir Donald
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wells, Sidney Richard


Ray, Sir William
Soper, Richard
Weymouth, Viscount


Read, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Southby, Commander Archibatd R. J.
Whyte, Jardlne Bell


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Remer, John R.
Stevenson, James
Wlndsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Renwick, Major Gustav A,
Stones, James
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rickards, George William
Storey, Samuel
Wise, Alfred R.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Strauss, Edward A.
Withers, Sir John James


Ross, Ronald D.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Womersley, Walter James


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admirail Sir Murray F.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Runge, Norah Cecil
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Summersby, Charles H.



Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sutcliffe, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert-Ward


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Templeton, William P.
and Major George Davies.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Arrangements with associations of employed persons.)

The Unemployment Assistance Board may enter into an arrangement for the payment of allowances by any society, body, or association with which an arrangement has been made under the Unemployment Insurance Acts for the payment of unemployment benefit.—[Mr. Hicks.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not think it will be necessary to argue the case at any great length, but I should like to remind the House that ever since unemployment insurance has been in operation trade union rules have been used for building up the methods of distribution of benefit. The trade unions have been solicited and have willingly cooperated with the Government departments in the distribution of benefit. Right through, apart from standard benefit, in regard to uncovenanted benefit and transitional payments, societies having an arrangement under Section 17 have been able to use their machinery for the distribution of payments which have come outside the ordinary category of standard benefit.
We are desirous that the Government should avail themselves of the opportunity of this new Clause to make it possible for the Unemployment Assistance Board to enter into such an arrangement with the trade unions in the future. I think from their experience the Department and the Minister are perfectly satisfied with the arrangements which have prevailed in the past. The distribution of benefits has been satisfactory. Indeed, if it is measured by the number of prose-
cutions which have taken place on account of improper receipt of payments, the working of direct claims and indirect claims, the decision is favourable to the trade unions. I am aware that at the end of 26 weeks, the statutory period when unemployment payment ceases, payments are made on a basis of need, but I would suggest seriously that if they agree to the new Clause only about 30 per cent. of those eligible to receive benefit would come under that head while 70 per cen would receive benefit by direct claim. The trade unions have a long experience in regard to the payment of benefits. Long before there was any unemployment insurance in this country they were distributing benefits, and in addition they are in close touch with their Members and with employment, while they also provide ways and means for registering.
Before the Minister turns down this proposal I hope he will consider it very sympathetically. It would be all to the advantage of the Unemployment Assistance Board if they had the opportunity of coming to some arrangement with bodies like the trade unions. It is not compulsory, the Clause says that they may enter into an arrangement. If the opportunity is missed now, I am afraid that we shall find great difficulty later on in incorporating it in the machinery of the Bill. The experience they will obtain as a consequence of working through the agency of societies and bodies like this will enable them at the end of the period either to terminate the arrangement or to continue it, whichever they may consider desirable. In the opinion of a number of societies who for a large number of years have paid supplementary unemployment benefit to State benefit, and
unemployment benefit apart from State benefit, and uncovenanted benefit and transitional payments, it is thought that the Government would be well advised to take advantage of their experience. I hope the Government will give facilities for the adoption of the new Clause.

5.20 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I do not think that hon. Members opposite will accuse us of any lack of sympathy or appreciation of the work which trade unions have done under Section 17. It has been of advantage in many ways. Owing to the difficulties which trade unions, in common with other organisations, have had to face in the course of the last few years, a certain number of them have had to abandon arrangements under Section 17, and hon. Members opposite will be aware that my right hon. Friend and I have gone out of our way to stretch the rules and regulations as far as we could in order to enable as large a number of trade unions as possible to continue their arrangements under Section 17 during times of difficulties. They will, I am sure appreciate what has been done. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), in moving this new Clause, laid his finger on the difficulty. The payment of standard benefit through trade unions is a perfectly logical arrangement, because the original insurance scheme was largely based on the experience of trade unions, a long experience, and very many of their rules were incorporated in it. Those trade unions which take advantage of Section 17 pay benefit out of their own funds at the same time as they pay benefit from the Unemployment Fund.
When you come to the question of allowances under Part II, different considerations arise. The only ground on which an arrangement of this sort could be justified would be if the trade unions concerned were willing to accept the principle that these payments by the Unemployment Assistance Board under Part II should be regarded as supplementary to the out-of-work payments which they themselves make from their own trade union funds. From what I know of the trade unions I do not think they would agree to accept that proposition, and, that being so, I do not think it is appropriate that we should continue Section 17
arrangements for the men who cease to be entitled to benefit and come under Part II. On the other hand, there may be circumstances in which the board will desire to take advantage of the experience of trade unions, and I can well imagine that in a number of cases they will decide that it will be to the advantage of both if they appoint the trade union, and more particularly a trade union official of a certain branch in a particular area, as their agent for the purpose of making these payments. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from doing that. Under the Bill, they will have full power to do it. The course I have indicated represents, I think, a practical way out of the difficulty without incurring any of the rather serious technical difficulties which would be involved by the insertion of the new Clause. Nearly everything which the hon. Member wants will be obtained by the methods I have suggested, and, therefore, I hope that he will not press the Clause.

Mr. HICKS: I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary has not been able to accept the new Clause, but, after what he has said, I do not propose to press it.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 1.—(Age for entry into insurance and rate of contributions in respect of persons under sixteen.)

6.16 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out from the second "to," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert :
attend school unless there is some reasonable excuse.
This and the two following Amendments which I shall move are substantially drafting Amendments. When we were in Committee the fear was expressed by more than one hon. Member that a child in a by-law area might not receive the same credit of contributions as the child in an area where the school-leaving age was 14. It was always the intention of the Bill that the crediting of contributions should begin at the age of 14 in all areas, and, in order to make sure that the intention is carried out, I am moving these Amendments. The second Amendment is consequential on an Amendment made in Committee to the application to Scotland Clause which was the old Clause 32. That Clause, as amended in Committee, would not require any consultation with the Scottish Education Department regarding the crediting of contributions. It is in order to ensure that when necessary we shall have such consultation that the Amendment is being proposed.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: We welcome these Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman referred to by-law areas, and I am not sure that the House conceives what that means. It means, I understand, that where local education committees have used their power to raise the school age to 15 the children will be in a position of being credited as they would be in other areas where the age is 14. We are glad the right hon. Gentleman has clarified this point, for it was a matter of doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made : In page 2, line 15, after "Education," insert "and the Scottish Education Department."

In line 17, leave out from "which," to "have," in line 20, and insert "the period of compulsory elementary instruction ends."—[Sir H. Betterton.]

6.20 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert :
(4) For the purposes of this Section a legally indentured apprentice shall be deemed to be a person in receipt of whole time education.
I hope the Minister will regard this Amendment sympathetically, because an excellent case can be made for it. The present position is that the employers of indentured apprentices are liable for the payment of contributions, but the appren-
tices are not able to receive benefit any period of their apprenticeship. During recent years there has been a partial decay of the apprenticeship system. It is not possible to argue now the reasons for and against apprenticeship in this machine age, but there are a number of excellent arguments in favour of rescuing the system from further decay and possibly of restoring it to the position it once used to occupy. In many trades the decay has set in owing to the fact that those who have entered a trade have not had adequate training. The period and intensity of the training has been insufficient, and that has later reflected itself in the craftsman's skill. Industry is bearing a great responsibility, and, if it could be relieved of contributions when the apprentices are not entitled to receive any benefit, it would react favourably on the apprenticeship system. There is a tendency for employers, when they have to pay contributions for unemployment insurance for lads who will not be able to receive benefit, not to accept the responsibility for continuing them in employment, but rather to take them on under some sort of agreement as against an indentured apprenticeship.
I would ask the Minister to regard the training of craftsmen as education. It is not the type of training boys would receive at a training centre or camp, but it is a definite training in industry. The Government should encourage the restoration of the apprenticeship system, and they might do it by relieving employers of contributions in respect of indentured apprentices. I know there are instances in which lads have received an indenture for apprenticeship where the employer, owing to some reason or another, has gone out of business, and it may be argued that because of that possibility the Government are not able to accept my suggestion. I think, however, that the percentage of those who fail to meet their obligations to their apprentices is very low, and it might be possible to meet the position in other ways. It might be done by a rebate at the end of the year if the business has been carrying on unproductively, so that the apprentice would not receive any check in his education during the year. There may be other ways of meeting the difficulty, but, in any case, employers should
be relieved of liability for contributions so long as the indenture is honourably carried out. In view of the fact that there has been a tendency for the apprenticeship system to go down and of the desirability of restoring it, I would urge the Government to do everything that they can to encourage it.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: When I first saw this Amendment I was not sure exactly what the hon. Member had in mind, but I now see from his speech that he would like us to consider exempting indentured apprentices from the payment of insurance contributions, and he would like us to regard apprenticeship as an alternative form of whole-time education. That is why he has suggested that contributions should be credited to an apprentice in the same way as they are credited to a child who remains voluntarily at school over the age of 14. I do not dissent from what he said about the desirability of encouraging apprenticeship, but I rather doubt whether this is the right way to go about it. It is not quite accurate to suggest that no apprentices get unemployment benefit. The only circumstances in which apprentices who are unemployed do not get benefit is when the indentures are so strictly drawn that the employer is under a definite obligation to pay an allowance to the apprentice. In the ordinary ease, an apprentice who falls out of work would be entitled to benefit. Therefore, to make the alteration suggested would not be in the best interest of apprentices generally. It might be in the interest of apprentices whose indentures do not allow of suspension but not in the interest of the majority of apprentices.
I would remind the hon. Member that apprentices have only been subject to-compulsory insurance since 1920. Before then contributions were not payable in respect of them, and one of the main reasons why they were included in the scheme was the widespread complaints on this point which were prevalent before 1920; and it was at the definite request of those interested in extending appreaticeship that apprentices were brought into the scheme. If that was the experience in the past, when apprentices were not insured, I am inclined to think that it would be a retrograde step now to expose them to the evils to which they
were subject before 1920. I think the hon. Member will realise, although we both have the same object in view, that this Amendment would not achieve what he desires, and I hope that he will consider withdrawing it.

Mr. HICKS: May I explain that I am distinguishing between the apprentice who is an indentured apprentice, with his employer accepting full responsibility for work or pay during the whole period of the indenture, and other apprentices who are working under an agreement rather than an indenture. I want to see a lad enter upon a period of systematic training, with the employer accepting responsibility for him, rather than that he should engage himself under the looser form of apprenticeship under which the employer temporarily engages him, calling it training, and discharges him when there is no work. Employers who accept the additional responsibilities which accompany indentured apprenticeship might be relieved from paying contributions when neither they nor the apprentices get any benefit.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does an employer pay for a boy if the boy is not eligible for benefit?

Mr. HUDSON: I will find out the answer to that question. I quite appreciate the distinction which the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) wishes to draw between ordinary apprenticeship and indentured apprenticeship, but it would put the Ministry of Labour in a very invidious position if we had to decide in each case whether the indenture was a satisfactory one or not. The Department would have to go into the question whether the employer would give the boy a proper training, and whether he was in a satisfactory position financially to carry out his contract for five years There would be a whole series of questions like that, and it is our opinion that we are not the proper Department to go into those matters.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: For another reason I want the House to be careful before accepting this Amendment. These legal indentures of apprenticeship are different from the ordinary agreements under which a boy is bound apprentice for a period, say, of five years, but which are frequently set aside should certain cir-
cumstances arise. With a legal indenture the employer accepts responsibility for the period of the apprenticeship, and neither the boy nor the employer is allowed to break it except in the case of death, illness or the bankruptcy of the firm. One reason why I do not want exemption from paying insurance contributions in respect of these boys is that that would give the employer some sort of subsidy. Such apprentices would become a form of cheap labour. Apart from that, I am not in favour of the indenture system. It is a form of slavery. A father comes to an agreement with an employer to take his boy at the age of 16 to serve an apprenticeship to the trade for seven years. The boy is 23 before his time is up. The indenture is entered into when he is a boy, but before his time is up he is a man. The person who enters into the indenture is not the boy but his father. Long before he is 23 years of age the boy has a totally different idea of things, and very often rebels against the indenture. His parent has imposed on him at 16 what he regards, after he becomes a man, as a kind of slavery. My own trade has been concerned more than most trades with these apprenticeships and in many cases they have worked very harshly against the boy.
Another objection to this Amendment, in my view, is that if a boy enters into an indentured apprenticeship he will not have to pay insurance contributions, and that puts him at some advantage over the boy who is not indentured. Earlier in the proceedings to-day we have been supporting Amendments to bring more people into insurance; here is an Amendment to keep some outside insurance. Even if this Amendment were carried, the boy would be credited with only 20 stamps and not the full 30. His employer would have paid nothing, and he would have paid nothing. I would prefer that the boy should be credited with 30 stamps, so that when he was finished with the job he could get benefit, even if he had had to pay for it. My chief objection to the Amendment, however, is that I dislike any proposal that an employer is not to pay contributions in respect of some particular employés, because that employer is placed in an advantageous position over other employers, and to that extent the position is a danger to other workpeople.

Mr. HUDSON: May I, by permission, answer the question which was put to me a moment or two ago by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)? I understand that in an apprenticeship where money payments pass, contributions are payable in respect of the apprentice, but where there is no money payment, no contributions are payable.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That means, in effect, that everyone pays, because at some stage between the ages of 16 and 23 the boy, obviously, will receive some wages.

Mr. HICKS: I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to accept the Amendment, but, in view of the explanations he has given, I do not propose to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to enlarge or restrict excepted employments.)

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not propose to select the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) to leave out the Clause.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, to leave out from "regulations," to "provide," in line 6.
I rise to move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friends in whose names it stands. The Amendment proposes to leave out paragraph (a) of Subsection (1). Paragraph (a) reads :
provide for including the class of persons employed in insurable employment among the classes of persons employed in excepted employment;
The purpose of the Amendment is to deal with persons in certain industries who may be in the position of foremen over workers who are classed as manual workers. Up to the present it has been possible for the Minister, apparently, either to include or exclude that type of person from insurance. Our object in moving the deletion of this paragraph is to make certain that such a person shall in future be included among the insured. The effect of paragraph (a) is to restrict the area of insurability. Separate rulings have been given in respect of different factories in determining whether certain grades of workers are mainly engaged in manual work or not. In certain cases foremen are included among those mainly
engaged in manual work, and in others it has been held that their duties are not mainly of a manual character.

Mr. LUNN: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I confess again that until I heard the explanation of the hon. Member I did not know why this Amendment had been put down. Perhaps it is not extraordinary that the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) was not in his place to move the Amendment which Mr. Speaker did not select, because I have some recollection of a promise being given to meet one of his points in the regulations under the Clause, and if Mr. Speaker had called that Amendment and effect had been given to it, that would have prevented us from doing what he had asked. This Clause was devised in order to give that elasticity in the administration of the Acts which the Royal Commission recommended, and which I think the House has realised to be necessary. Its object is to remove anomalies under which a man is one day engaged in an insurable occupation and the next day finds himself in a non-insurable occupation, although, as far as one can see, there is no difference in the kind of work he is doing. It is clear that the anomalies will not be all of one class, and it may be that in some cases it will be easier to remedy the situation by excluding one or two persons from insurance than by including a very much larger number of other persons. We think it desirable to have the power to include or to exclude as we may think desirable. I can assure my hon. Friend that none of these regulations will be issued without full examination and without full opportunity for both sides to be heard, and he need be under no apprehension that justice will not be done.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I quite appreciate the value of Sub-section (2), because it gives power to the Minister which has been wanted for quite a long time. Considerations such as these arise out of the recent law case, which was only one' of a batch of cases, in which sections of employés have been excluded. The Ministry of Labour did not raise this case of its own volition, because it was clearly intended that those classes should be inside the Act. There was also the case of the
miner who, during one week was working in the pit, and who then came to the surface as his employer's attendant, upon which he immediately became a domestic servant for the purpose of the Act. That is, of course, absurd.
We were very pleased to hear the statement which the hon. Gentleman made on the first occasion when this matter was discussed. It was explicit enough. The hon. Gentleman says that they have power definitely to include, and also the power to exclude. We want to make sure that that power will be rationally used. Sometimes it presents the Ministry and the man concerned with a kind of dilemma. If the hon. Gentleman gives us the assurance that there will be no attempt to use the power of exclusion in an arbitrary way, we can withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. HUDSON: I can certainly give that assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I comment on the fact that the hon. Members who had their names down to this Amendment on this most important Bill never came in to move it, and that no one seemed to know much about it?

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Without any further explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out Sub-section (2).
This Sub-section reads :
Section four of the principal Act shall cease to have effect but any order or special order made under that section shall continue in force and have effect as if the provisions thereof had been made by regulations.
Section 4 of the principal Act to which reference is made, and which is to be revoked by this Sub-section, reads :
The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, by order provide for including among the persons employed within the meaning of this Act any persons engaged in any of the excepted employments specified in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, or any class or description of the persons so engaged, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.
The Minister has, at the moment, power by order to include certain industries and classes of persons within the scope of unemployment insurance. The purpose of the Sub-section is to divest the Minister of the power that he now possesses. The purpose of our Amendment is to secure that he shall still retain that power. The employments which he has the power to bring into insurability by order include employment in agriculture—including horticulture and forestry—in the naval, military or air service of the Crown and under any local authority. There is a large number of others, such as employment in the service of public utility undertakings. There is a long list with which I will not weary the House.
We found it rather difficult at first to understand why the Minister was divesting himself of power in this way, but the progress of the Bill in Committee has cleared the clouds away and we now understand why the Minister is so modest as to want to give away this power to the Statutory Committee. It is a further stage in stripping from the Minister—by stripping from the Minister it is stripping from the House—the functions that he at the moment possesses. It is the Rake's Progress of the National Government upon which they have set their feet. We had an experience of it a little earlier in the Debate. The Minister is now becoming a pale shadow of his former self. The House is entitled to ask the Minister at any time why he does not bring agriculture into unemployment insurance, and upon innumerable occasions he has been asked that question, and the question has been discussed over and over again. Knowing very well that this is a particularly thorny question, and that if he puts this Sub-section in the Bill without any other provision he might have trouble, even from his own followers in agricultural districts, the Minister has protected himself by putting in Clause 21. The Minister can include agriculture, including horticulture, in insurance by order, but Clause 21 reads:
The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act make such proposals as may seem to them practicable for the insurance against unemployment of persons engaged in employment in agriculture, and shall make a report to the Minister containing the proposals and any recommendations of the Committee with respect thereto and the report shall be laid before Parliament.
It will be clear to hon. Members that there is no obligation upon the Minister to act upon that report. All that happens is that the Statutory Committee are called upon to make a report. If Clause 21 were not in the Bill and this Sub-section were in, the Minister would find himself opposed in the House with the argument, "You are stripping yourself of power to bring agriculture in by order, and you are making no provision to discuss the insurability of agriculture," and so he puts in Clause 21.
All that is simply playing with the House of Commons. The Minister knows very well that there is no piece of legislation so difficult and so embarrassing, and giving rise to so many difficulties, as the inclusion of agriculture in unemployment insurance. Instead of being perfectly straightforward and standing at the Box and saying, "We do not propose to include agriculture," he says neither the one nor the other, but he simply says, "I will relieve myself of embarrassment by giving these powers to the Statutory Committee so that no hon. Member can then get up and ask me why I do not exercise the powers. In order that I may be defended from a charge of forgetting it altogether, I will ask the Statutory Committee to make a report to me upon the matter." The House cannot afford to have Ministers acting in accordance with these attenuated precautions. To the extent that the Minister strips himself of power he also strips the House of power, because we can exercise the power only through the Minister. The argument might be made, and the Parliamentary Secretary might even now be getting ready to make it, that we are saying that the Minister should have power to bring in agriculture by Order, whereas we have argued against Orders all the way through; but this has been on the Statute Book since 1920. It was put on the Statute Book in order that the area of insurability might be extended wherever it was thought desirable and when the condition of industry showed that such an attempt ought to be made. The Minister must provide us with more explanation than we have hitherto had. We have had no clear line at all.
He may say, "We desire to obtain the advice of the Statutory Committee." How the Statutory Committee can provide him with information which
is not in his possession now I do not understand. The Statutory Committee are having all sorts of things imposed upon them. They are going to be the important body in the future and the House of Commons will not matter at all. The Minister will be communicating with the Statutory Committee and the Statutory Committee with the Minister; the House of Commons will be by-passed and short-circuited. We shall merely come here to ratify the result of their conversations. We are anxious that the Government shall be exposed to pressure in this House for the bringing of these categories into insurance, and we do not want the Minister to hide behind the Statutory Committee. We do not want him to say : "The Statutory Committee is awfully busy in altering the scheme, and it has not had time to consider this matter. We ought to give them further time." We do not want an inspired report from the Statutory Committee recommending against the inclusion of these categories of workers; we want the Minister of the Crown to stand up to his responsibilities, and by so standing up still to retain for this House its dignity and status in respect of unemployment insurance.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment, because I want the Minister to give some explanation why the Subsection is being taken out of the Bill. It appears that the Minister is taking back some power into his hands in regard to what was knocked out under the other Act, and that the intention is to hand that power over to the Statutory Committee. We wish the Minister to retain whatever powers he has, rather than to hand them over to an outside body. We have taken exception to the work of Parliament being handed over to the Statutory Committee. This Sub-section will give the Statutory Committee further powers, if I read it aright. It is difficult to understand why this Sub-section is striking out part of the principal Act, because one would have thought, in the circumstances, that the Minister would have retained that power even though he handed over some of the work to the Statutory Committee. We feel that there ought to be an explanation, and I hope the Minister will let us know what the position is.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) showed by his speech that he had not read either the Bill or the Act of 1920, and I must come to the conclusion that he has misled the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). Under the Act of 1920 the Minister has power by Order to include in the insurance scheme the classes which are specified in the Schedule, but he has only power to include them on the existing terms. My hon. Friend asked my right hon. Friend why he has not included agriculture. This power has been in existence since 1920—

Mr. A. BEVAN: I did not ask him that question.

Mr. HUDSON: —and has never been exercised by any Government, either Coalition, Conservative or Labour, for the very good reason that it is, obviously, quite impossible to include agriculture in Unemployment Insurance at the same rates of contribution as the rest of the workers pay. That is the reason why that power has never been used. The hon. Member went on to say that, to the extent that the Minister strips himself of powers under this Subsection, he strips this House of its power. The hon. Member will forgive me for saying that the Minister does nothing of the sort. Under the Act of 1920 this House has no powers at all. My right hon. Friend, under that Act, can issue an Order to-morrow including agriculture without any reference to this House. Look at what he has now done. Under this Sub-section, as a result of stripping himself of this power, he has brought about the position that he can only bring agriculture in by bringing a new Bill before the House and giving this House a full opportunity of discussing the matter.

Mr. A. BEVAN: A power which he never exercises, and does not intend to exercise.

Mr. HUDSON: I submit to the House that to describe that proposal as stripping the House of its powers is greatly to exaggerate. My right hon. Friend, far from wishing to get more power, is anxious to divest himself of powers which have been proved by the experience of the past not to be adapted
to the purpose. That is why we have put in this Sub-section and have limited the powers that we possess to-day to the very narrow limits of the first part of this Clause, namely, dealing with certain marginal cases of anomalies. Far from stripping power from this House, we have, on the contrary, restored it.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Gentleman has given for the first time what appears to him, at any rate, some sort of satisfactory explanation of this Sub-section. The House must, however, remember that this is the first time we have had an opportunity of hearing a Minister explain just what this Bill and certain Clauses and Sub-sections of it mean. To that extent my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining the Ministerial interpretation of the Bill. We have been somewhat fortunate in this respect, that in the Report stage we have just happened to drop on to those Clauses—at present, at any rate—that have not had an explanation. When, however, the hon. Gentleman suggests that we are to have more power as a result of handing over power to the Statutory Committee, he is asking too much of the imagination of this House.
I know it is suggested that by Order under Section 4 of the principal Act the right hon. Gentleman could bring agricultural workers in without any discussion at all. We are not likely to have any Minister fighting a case on this Act. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, no Government has been inclined to press this matter of agriculture. It is assumed that when the Statutory Committee get going we shall have a real opportunity of discussing any proposals that they might make. It might be that the proposals only exist in imagination. I know that the Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and various other right hon. Members have explained the many opportunities that we are to have to discuss proposals that are made by the Statutory Committee. We have, however, had some experience of all that kind of thing in the past. No one who has been in this House for any length of time can fail to know that if things are to be done by Orders in an indirect way, although 11 o'clock is thought to be a sufficient time, in actual practice, although in
theory the right of discussion remains, no such right is in the hands of the House of Commons.
We suggest that the powers that are now in the hands of the Minister, however defunct they may have been, may have to be used at some time. The Statutory Committee has just about as much power as it can handle at the present time, without the House distinctly, directly, and deliberately divesting itself of its responsibility. The hon. Gentleman's answer may have convinced by its specious appearance those who do not know the practical working of the Act, but its effect would not be exactly what they expect, or what Members of this House would like it to be.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I must admire the Under-Secretary's very clever answer on this point, but it does not, in effect, mean quite what he meant it to mean. He said that he, or his chief, could bring in agriculture on the same terms as they can bring in building labourers and engineers, on the same contributions and with the same benefits. He knows as well as I do that no Minister would do that, for the reason that to bring in agriculture by Order would mean that the House of Commons would want to examine the whole question. A wise Minister, if he wanted to bring in agriculture, would introduce a Measure and submit it to the House. To find the real purpose of this Clause it is necessary to turn to the Act of 1920. When the proposal was put into that Act it was not meant that the Minister should have the sweeping power of bringing in any industry he chose. The 1920 Parliament knew, as well as the Under-Secretary knows, that no Minister could bring in agriculture by a stroke of the pen. The 1920 Parliament meant that there were a number of cases dealing with agriculture and certain other classes of work where it was advisable for the Minister to have the power to bring them in, but not as a sweeping Measure.
I will instance some which exist to-day. Municipalities up and down the country employ a large number of men in, for example, the parks department, men who are not in agriculture from the point of view of wages or conditions, but are as well, and even better, paid than the engineers. For good or ill, however, decisions of the High Court have placed
them outside the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The power placed in the hands of the Minister in 1920 was never meant to allow him to bring in a whole industry such as agriculture, because the 1920 Parliament would never have agreed to that. What was meant was that in a case where people like that were ruled out but were not agricultural workers in anything like the strict sense, he should have power to bring them in if he wanted to. The provision was also meant to apply to men employed by a public utility company. He is now saying, "I do not want that power."
I said earlier, and repeat now, that Parliament has decided that certain classes are to come into Unemployment Insurance. The Minister ought to see that municipal employés or similar workers are not allowed to contract out because they are permanent employés. In other words, they should come into insurance on the same terms. Where I cannot understand the Act is that here you may have a man employed as a joiner by the Glasgow Corporation at much better wages and on much better conditions than joiners outside the Corporation, but because of that fact he is not brought into insurance. If, however, he is employed by private enterprise without those conditions, he is brought in, and I think he ought to be brought in. We say that in the 1920 Act the real reason why the Minister was given the power to bring in agriculture was that he should retain power to bring in a large number of people who might be affected in those industries, and whom it was thought advisable to bring in.
The argument the hon. Gentleman used to-day was, "I am going to make the scheme much more democratic; I am going to send the question to the advisory board and on their advice to draft a Bill and come down with it to the House of Commons." Those of us who knew agriculture in the last House of Commons, with the Labour Government, will remember that before they could consider it a Motion was specially made and tabled in the House of Commons. Even though the Minister had that power, he tabled a special Motion asking that agricultural workers should come into the scheme, and after that was carried, he said that we must have another Bill. The Government say that
this Sub-section is to give us greater power. All that the principal Act meant was that there are a large number of people outside the Bill. Each time a question is asked, the hon. Gentleman will get up and say, "This body is considering the matter, and until it has considered the matter we shall not be able to give you any considered reply." It will be the same situation as that of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The only difference between us and the Tariff Reformers will be that the Tariff Reformers have much more power in this Government than we have. Their answer is that the Import Duties Advisory Committee is seriously considering the matter, and that they will give their opinion soon. In this matter we shall give our opinion on the question of agricultural workers being brought in, and be told that the Committee are considering it. If we ask about municipal workers, we shall be told that they are considering it.
Now the issue is not one of Parliament or not Parliament; it is, why is the Minister not introducing a Measure to bring that number of people within the fold? He can be questioned at that Box any day on why he is not introducing a Bill to cover those people, and he must answer. He will answer that the Committee are considering the matter; that they are very busy, and that the matter is being given a great deal of consideration. By the time he has finished his career at that job, somebody from this side of the House will take his place, in a different Government, and we shall question that Government, and be told that the matter is taking a long time, and never be able to get a Vote in the House of Commons. When we ask Mr. Speaker for permission to put a Motion down, he will say that the Act of Parliament gives the power to the Statutory Committee, and we shall not be able to get a Division. For years we shall be hung up by the constant answer that the Committee are considering the matter.
For the moment the House is considering it; the Minister is challenged, or censured, or subject to some form of Vote. The Under-Secretary gave a very clever reply, of the kind that we are always used to getting from him. I have, however, warned him that men like himself are sometimes inclined to become a shade
too clever. I would say of the hon. Gentleman's reply that it was one that one would almost be tempted to give in his place to any opponent, and I do not blame him for it, but the real meaning of the reply is this. This power was given in order that the Minister himself might be able in certain cases to bring in particular classes of workers, such as agricultural workers. Now that this Clause is passing away from us, he has not that power; the matter must first be submitted to this Committee for its consideration. That is the point that my hon. Friend is really making.

7.16 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I should like to add my congratulations on the ingenuousness of the Parliamentary Secretary. He likes to assume a. simplicity of manner, no doubt deriving his inspiration from the Minister himself. But while the Minister somehow or other—I do not want to be unkind—inspires confidence by his simplicity of manner, the Parliamentary Secretary somehow or other makes us suspicious, because we know what an acute mind he has, and how thoroughly he understands the Bill. There is no innocence on his part. I think we want to free our minds from cant on this subject. It is quite clear that the object and purpose of this Clause, and of the Bill, is, rightly or wrongly, to take the insurance side out of politics—to take it away from the Minister and hand it over to the Statutory Committee. That was the recommendation, rightly or wrongly, of the Royal Commission, and that is the policy of the Government. Is it not better to say frankly that we are not now going to take any responsibility for adding new classes, for extending the scope of insurance to new sections of the community—that we want to take that away from Parliament and away from the Government Department and put it in the hands of this new Committee?
The new Committee may be extraordinarily clever and competent; it may be composed of the right people, who, possibly, may be far more competent to judge on this subject than the Minister; but this procedure does more or less take the initiative from Parliament and from the Minister—it takes the matter out of our control and hands it over to the Statutory Committee. That means that it will be made more difficult to in-
clude black-coated workers, agricultural labourers, or domestic servants, because the procedure now will be on other lines. Is it not better that we should be quite frank and clear, that we should know what our position is, and that we should be able to say to our electors that we no longer have a direct responsibility in this matter, because certain machinery has been set up, and, as long as that machinery is in existence, as long as this Bill when it has become an Act remains on the Statute Book, our responsibility is lessened. That is the object of these simple, innocent words, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary is quite conscious of it. It is not giving Parliament more control, but is giving Parliament and the Department less responsibility. That is the situation.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) says that we are giving up Parliamentary control. I am the last person to wish to give up Parliamentary control, but I would point out that, unless something is done to relieve Parliament of the intolerable burden of endless Debates on Unemployment Insurance Bills, important though they may be—a burden from which Parliament has suffered for the last 20 years—Parliament will be estopped from dealing with other matters which also are very important indeed. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on the very able and excellent speech which he has just made. Indeed, the hon. Member occupies a unique position, for he is the one Labour Member with a thorough knowledge of the job. The inability of Labour Members in general to know their own Amendments is unequalled in the history of the Opposition. In these circumstances, I would like, if I may, to point out one very valuable thing that might come out of this present Debate, and that is that, as the Minister has one Labour Member who knows so much about these questions, and who stands so high in the esteem of the House, he might be a very good person to put on the Statutory Committee.

Viscountess ASTOR: I beg to second that.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: After the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I think that the House will have discovered the reason why the Parliamentary Secretary made his speech, and why this Sub-section is to be included. It is for the purpose of taking the question of unemployment away from the House of Commons. That is the only deduction that one can draw from the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay—that Parliament must not be troubled with the most vital problem that concerns it, namely, unemployment, which must be relegated to an advisory committee, in order that that committee may consider whatever may be necessary from time to time. I think that the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has been substantiated by the reply that we have received.
We should certainly like the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary to say something far more substantial in this regard than we have heard from them hitherto. There can be no doubt that the House in future, as regards this problem, will be placed in precisely the same position in which it is in connection with import duties and other matters. Hon. Members from Lancashire put questions from time to time with regard to Lancashire versus Japan, but no satisfactory answer is given to them, and we hear them give notice that, unless they can have a satisfactory reply from the Minister, the matter will be raised on the Motion for the Adjournmtnt of the House. That is what is happening with regard to the Tariff Board, and precisely the same thing will arise in connection with unemployment. The Minister will not be able to satisfy the House, for the obvious reason that Members will be prohibited from putting down specific questions regarding certain classes of persons who may be brought into insurance. We hope that we may have a further reply from the Parliamentary Secretary which will give us satisfaction, though frankly I do not believe he can satisfy us, and that it will be necessary for us to take a Division on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided : Ayes, 254; Noes, 57.

Division No. 231.]
AYES.
[7.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Goff, Sir Park
Pearson, William G.


Adams. Samuel Vyyyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Goldie, Noel B.
Penny, Sir George


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Grimston, R. V.
Petherick, M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Pike, Cecil F.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hales, Harold K.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Beauchamp, Sir Brograva Campbell
Hanbury, Cecil
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks, Aylesbury)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ray, Sir William


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hartland, George A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathanlel
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Remer, John R.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hepworth, Joseph
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Broadbent, Colonel John.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rickards, George William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hornby, Frank
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Horns, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ruhge, Norah Cecil


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Carver, Major William H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Iveagh, Countess of
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cazalet, Thelma (Isllngton, E.)
Jamleson, Douglas
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Ker, J. Campbell
Scone, Lord


Christle, James Archibald
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Selley, Harry R.


Clarke, Frank.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Colfox, Major William Phillp
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Conant, R. J. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Cook, Thomas A.
Lewis, Oswald
Somervell, Sir Donald


Cooke, Douglas
Liddall, Walter S.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Soper, Richard


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lleweilln, Major John J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Cross, R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spens, William Patrick


Crossley, A. C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McKle, John Hamilton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stevenson, James


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stones, James


Davies, Maj. Geo. P. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strauss, Edward A.


Denville, Alfred
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dickle, John P.
Magnay, Thomas
Summereby, Charles H.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Templeton, William P.


Dunglass, Lord
Martin, Thomas B.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Eady, George H.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Eastwood, John Francis
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Eden, Robert Anthony
Milne, Charles
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinferd)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Train, John


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Moreing, Adrian C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Elmley, Viscount
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Morris Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Ward, Lt.-Cot. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mere)
Morrison, William Shephard
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Munro, Patrick
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (petersf'ld)
Wells, Sidney Richard


Fox, Sir Glfford
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Weymouth, Viscount


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nunn, William
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Williams, Charlas (Davon, Torquay)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Ormsby-Gore, St. Hon. William G. A.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Palmer, Francis Noel
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George




Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Womerslay, Walter James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wise, Alfred R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Captain Austin Hudson and


Withers, Sir John James

Mr. Blindell.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Barnays, Robert
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mllnar, Major Jamas


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Healy, Cahir
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cove, William G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Curry, A. C.
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
West, F. R.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
White, Henry Graham


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dobble, William
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Leonard, William
Wilmot, John


Foot, Issac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lunn, William



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pambroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, John
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, to leave out Subsection (3).
This Sub-section gives the Minister power to enlarge the scope of excepted employment. Previous Amendments moved by my hon. Friends have been in the direction of urging the Minister to restrict the scope of excepted employment. We want the inclusion of the largest possible number of people in industry and, in an industry which is insured, we want everyone in it to be an insured person. I think the case can be made out very strongly by making reference to the frequent closing down of coal mines, where everyone who is employed, whatever his occupation, from the colliery manager to the youngest and newest recruit, is turned away and loses his employment. It is a very unfair regulation which would give the Minister the power to exclude any number of those people from the benefits of insurance in those circumstances. In this Sub-section the Minister has power to enlarge the range of excepted employments and to deprive a very large number of people, according to his judgment, of the right of insurability and of participation in the insurance scheme. There is the other point that the whole Clause brings confusion into the scheme. I understood Part I of the Bill to be a transference from the Ministry of Labour to the Statutory Committee. I thought the Statutory Committee were to be given the power to determine the conditions, the range of insurability and the qualifications for
benefit. All those things are defined in the Second Schedule. But we find that, having regard to the state of the fund, the Statutory Committee is to determine what particular persons are to be added to those already insured, and what conditions are to be laid down for maintaining insurability. But here the Minister is breaking in upon his own Bill, and adding uncertainty and confusion to the whole scheme.
We do not resent strongly the idea that the Minister should, at his discretion, add to the number of persons in any industry, but when he is asking the House for power to exclude from insurance people whom he will determine for himself to shut out from benefit, people who are already perhaps insured persons, we should like further information on the point. Is it to be assumed that in the case of a person now deemed to be entitled to insurance, who has been a contributor for any number of years, the Minister can say : "This particular person is not employed for a sufficient number of days in any one week, and because he is not employed as long as other persons in the same industry, I will withdraw him. He is to be in an excepted category. I will receive no further contributions from him and provide no further benefit." If that case is possible under the Sub-section, does the Minister provide compensation for the loss of benefit? There is no one in the House who, reading the Clause, can answer the question. It is only the Minister, from the recesses of his own mind, who can answer it, and I invite him to do so. This
is a very serious departure from the whole principle of the Bill, and I ask the Minister to withdraw all these provisions limiting the scope of insurability. It may be that there will be a small minority, perhaps one or two people out of 500 or 600 who are thrown out of employment by the closing down of a factory or a mine, and they will be told : "You were in an excepted category. There is no explanation, no redress, and no appeal. The Minister has decided by regulation that you are not to he regarded as an insurable person and you will cease to be insured." I should like the hon. Gentleman to give the House an assurance that the Clause will not adversely, harshly and unjustly affect people who are now employed. If he fails to give us satisfaction, we shall be forced to take the matter to a Division.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I think that the House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for putting down the Amendment, because it gives me an opportunity to relieve his mind. I can assure him that none of the apprehensions to which he has given expression is well-founded. This Subsection is very limited indeed in scope. It does not deal with large classes of persons but merely with individuals within a class, and therefore it does not make any enormous increase in the number of persons who are excepted. All that it does is to legalise the present practice. I do not know whether it is legal or whether it verges on the illegal, but the present practice is not to insist on contributions from persons who are employed only for inconsiderable periods. Let me give one or two illustrations. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that in his own industry in many areas the night-shift starts work at 10 o'clock on a Sunday. Technically a man who starts work at 10 o'clock on a Sunday night has to pay contributions in respect of the week of which Sunday is the last day and also in respect of the following week, and technically, in respect of one week's work, he is liable to pay two contributions.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: One day's work.

Mr. HUDSON: I am assuming that normally he will be employed for the week, starting the week on the Sunday
night. Wherever he starts before midnight, he is technically liable for two contributions. Obviously that is not the intention of the Act.

Mr. T. SMITH: In the mining industry a man who starts work on a night shift is always regarded as being at work on the day following.

Mr. HUDSON: I know he is, but it is very doubtful indeed whether that is legal.

Mr. SMITH: It is the practice in the coalfields.

Mr. HUDSON: I know it is, and the Sub-section is to legalise that practice. It is very doubtful indeed whether for a long period of years we have not been conniving at an illegality. Employment for an inconsiderable period of two hours on a Sunday night will in future be considered as non-insurable. The same sort of thing is true of sandwich-men who are engaged for two or three hours on a Saturday afternoon. It is clear that to ask a sandwich-man to pay 10d. out of a very small wage of three or four shillings for three or four hours' work is a great hardship. In practice we do not, in the great majority of cases, exact the contribution. There is a similar sort of case where a waitress is employed only for an hour or two on a Saturday or Sunday. Again, the practice is not to accept the contribution, although technically it is payable. It is in order to legalise our present practice as regards individuals, and not as regards great classes, that we have put this in and I think, on reconsideration, hon. Members will realise that, as long as it is limited, as it will be, to individual cases where the employment is inconsiderable, it is a provision that ought to be in the Act.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: The hon. Gentleman has argued the excuse of contributions on a particular date, but he has not argued for exempting the person from insurability because the person works the following week in insurable employment like a large number of other people. I think that the hon. Gentleman must be mistaken. If that be the reason for the Sub-section, I would ask him to look at it again, because it does not fulfil his intention. It goes much further.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: How would a man be affected who happened to have an
accident between 10 and 12 midnight on Sunday after having worked on the Saturday? Would he be in the Insurance Fund for that time? You say that you are going to leave the position so that he would not be insurable for those hours?

Mr. HUDSON: It would not affect him. In reply to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), at present, where a domestic servant gets three hours' work in an insurable occupation during the week, technically she becomes an insurable person; we do not want to insist upon contributions for such a negligible amount of employment.

Mr. GRENFELL: That is a different case.

Mr. HUDSON: That is the case which is covered. That is broadly the line we take. In the case of the miner we do not exercise the whole of that power and excuse him from being insurable, but merely excuse him from the payment of a contribution in that occupation. I can assure hon. Members that there is no catch whatever.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The case of the miner is an example of the absurdity of the terms of employment. I understand that the miner who goes to work at 10 o'clock on Sunday night really becomes insurable if he only works two hours on Sunday, and also insurable in respect of the next week if he works for the next six hours or so on the Monday. The intention is to see that, instead of being charged two weeks' insurance contributions, his contribution shall be in respect of one week. It is true that the Ministry have all kinds of contradictions of that kind to handle. There is the further point which was raised to the effect that certain classes work only a few hours during the week, and it is the desire of the Ministry to see that they are excused from the payment of contributions. I know that there are odd cases where that is so, but I think that, if the Ministry exercise powers to except such people, they will probably very soon find themselves on the other side of the fence. People will be deliberately engaging boys or girls or young men or young women for a few hours in order to avoid making the insurance contribution, whereas otherwise they might employ them for a few days or a week.
I wonder whether, if those regulations are used, the Ministry will not find types of employers who will deliberately use that knowledge and avoid paying contributions by employing people for short periods. I know that the Ministry of Labour would not countenance people of that description. There are the very good employers, but there are also the in-different employers, and the unscrupulous employers, and I am pretty sure, if the Ministry exercise the right of making regulations, difficulties may arise.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: With the leave of the House, I would say that I think the hon. Member has not quite appreciated what I said earlier, that these regulations will not apply to whole classes of persons, but only to individuals. It will not be a matter of saying that all boys who are-not employed for more than three hours-in a week shall come under this Clause It will be a case at each exchange of Tom, Dick or Harry on a certain date. It will be a discretion exercised on behalf of the Minister by the manager of the exchange in each individual case.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why have regulations? As I see the position, you are practically doing something which is not legal, but it has this virtue, that it avoids making a general regulation to allow people to employ workers without intending to pay the contributions. As long as it is illegal you have always the power to come along and stop an individual case. Why make a regulation? Is the regulation intended only to give exchange managers power to take action? If that be so, I have no objection.

Mr. HUDSON: A power of this kind has to be exercised with discretion. Each ease will be dealt with by the exchange manager, who will see that the danger foreseen by the hon. Member is avoided as far as possible.

Mr. LAWSON: The Ministry cannot avoid the danger of the unscrupulous employer. The word may be passed round that this regulation is there, and they will get away with it by employing a worker perhaps only half a day when otherwise they might have employed him for a week. I am not sure that the spreading of good news of this kind might-not land the Ministry into difficulties.

Mr. HUDSON: I cannot conceive that this sort of thing would arise in practice. A man would not employ, say, 12 separate boys for 12 separate half days in order to escape the payment of 2d.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In so far as the worker is exempt here, I take it that it does not mean that he would also be exempt under Health Insurance? Exemption

here would not automatically carry Health Insurance exemption?

Mr. HUDSON: Oh, no.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided : Ayes, 243; Noes, 44.

Division No. 232.]
AYES.
[7.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Allen. William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Martin, Thomas B.


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonet John


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gluckstein, Louls Halle
Milne, Charles


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Grattan-Doyie, Sir Nicholas
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moreing, Adrian C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro', W.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Beaument, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bernays, Robert
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Borodale, Viscount.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Munro, Patrick


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hales, Harold K.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Broadbent. Colonel John
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nunn, William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harris, Sir Percy
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Brown, Ernest (Lefth)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kennlngt'n)
O'Neill. Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Browne, Captain A. C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pearson. William G.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peat, Charles U.


Burghley, Lord
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Penny, Sir George


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hepworth, Joseph
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Petherick, M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington. E.)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Pike, Cecil F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W.)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton le Spring)
Hornby, Frank
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Radford, E. A.


Christie, James Archibald
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Wastern Isles)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Remsden, Sir Eugene


Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Colfox, Major William Philip
Iveagh, Countess of
Ray, Sir William


Conant, R. J. E.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Jamieson, Douglas
Held, David D. (County Down)


Croft, Brlgadler-Gegeral Sir H.
Jennings, Roland
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Remer, John R.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Crosslay, A. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rickards, George William


Cutverwell, Cyril Tom
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Curry, A. C.
Law, Sir Alfred
Ropner, Colonel L.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Leckle, J. A.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Davies. Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Russell. Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Denville, Alfred
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Dickle, John P.
Lewis, Oswald
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Liddall. Walter S.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Salt, Edward W.


Dunglass, Lord
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Eady, George H.
Lleweilln, Major John J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Eastwood, John Francis
Llewellyn-Jones. Prederick
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Scone, Lord


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Selley, Harry R.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McKle. John Hamilton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Emrys-Evans. P. V.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mars)
McLean. Dr. W. H. (Tradaston)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Essenhigh, Reglnald Clare
Magnay, Thomas
Smith, R. W. (Aberd-n & Kine'dlne, C.)


Somervell, Sir Donald
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Summersby, Charles H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)
Sutcllffe, Harold
Wells, Sidney Richard


Soper, Richard
Templeton, William P.
Weymouth, Viscount


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thomas, James P L. (Hereford)
White. Henry Graham


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Spencer. Captain Richard A.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Spens, William Patrick
Train, John
Wise, Alfred R.


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Turton, Robert Hugh
Withers, Sir John James


Stevenson, James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Stones, James
Wallace, John (Dunfermllne)



Storey, Samuel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr. Blindell.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Cove, William G.
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
Williams. Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Dobbie, William
McEntee, Valentine L.



Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James

CLAUSE 3.—(Right to, and duration of, benefit.)

8.5 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, to leave out, "reckoning six days for every ten," and to insert :
allowing to him days at the rate of three for every five.
This is a drafting Amendment in order to ensure that the original intention of the Clause is carried out. When we came to look into the matter it appeared possible, though perhaps not probable, that under the original wording only complete groups of the contributions would be taken into account. That was not our intention. Therefore, we are leaving out the six for ten and are inserting a rate of three for five, which will make clear all the additional days of benefit to which the man is entitled.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I think this is an improvement, so far as we can gather. There are many difficult things in connection with unemployment insurance, and it has been interesting to watch hon. Members sitting quietly and trying to understand the various ways of this quaint instrument. I understand that three in five will really mean more than six in ten in the long run, averaging over the whole period. Therefore, hon. Members will be interested to hear that
we have gained something, mathematically. We do not intend to oppose the Amendment. We are very glad that the officials of the Ministry of Labour have been so eager about the business that they have worked out the Sub-section in mathematical calculations.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made : In page 5, line 9, leave out "computing benefit under."—[Mr. Hudson.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Definition of benefit year.)

8.9 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, at the end, to insert "in that benefit year."

This Amendment must be considered in relation to the following Amendment : In page.5, line 34, at the end, to insert :
(2) If, in the case of any insured contributor, it is found that he has been treated in error as having begun his benefit year on any date by reason of his having been wrongly treated as having proved any of the matters aforesaid on that date, his benefit year shall nevertheless be deemed to have begun on that date, but he shall not be entitled to benefit during the remainder of that year until ho proves those matters.

It is not very easy to explain in simple language the very complicated position arising on the meaning of the words, "benefit year," but I will do my best to make it clear. At the present time, if
a man starts a new benefit year in error—an error arising from the fault of the exchange or perhaps some mistake of identity—and receives a benefit to which he is not entitled, owing to his not having fulfilled the conditions, chiefly in regard to the payment of 10 contributions after the expiry of the previous benefit year, there are no means of rectifying the mistake, and it goes on. What the Amendment does is to enable that mistake to be corrected and at the same time to put the man in no better position than the man who has, rightly, not started a new benefit year. A man, for example, starts incorrectly a new benefit year and receives six weeks' benefit. Without this Amendment he would be entitled, even if the mistake were corrected, not to pay any penalty for that six weeks' benefit—penalty is perhaps the wrong word to use—in this sense, that the six weeks would not be reckoned against him when they came to add up the number of weeks' benefit that he had drawn in the previous year, in order to assess his claim to additional benefit. That would be unfair to the man who correctly had not started a new benefit year. Therefore, we are taking power where a mistake has been made, to correct the mistake and to provide that the weeks of benefit that a man has wrongly drawn shall be computed as if they were weeks that he had rightly drawn when it comes to calculating how many additional weeks of benefit he is entitled to draw. It is all very complicated, and I have done my best to make it clear. If it is not clear, I will try to answer any questions that hon. Members may put.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I think it may be said that the hon. Member has made the point clear. We do not want anyone to gain because of any error. In these matters, when human beings are subject to difficult conditions, and those conditions are made rigid, they are sometimes difficult of application, and this sort of thing happens. Suppose a man questions the date when he began to get his benefit? His year dates from that time. Suppose there is disagreement between him and the officer, what will be the position? Will he have the right to go to the court of referees to have the position
defined? A man may begin his benefit year, and it may be that he has been working and a considerable time may elapse from the receipt of his first benefit to the next time he claims benefit. There would be in those circumstances a pardonable difference of opinion as to what the date was. There ought to be some arrangement for discussion of the matter.

Mr. HUDSON: In a case like that the matter would be referred to the court of referees, with the usual rights of appeal to the Umpire.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made : In page 5, line 34, at the end, insert :
(2) If, in the case of any insured contributor, it is found that he has been treated in error as having begun his benefit year on any date by reason of his having been wrongly treated as having proved any of the matters aforesaid on that date, his benefit year shall nevertheless be deemed to have begun on that date, but he shall not be entitled to benefit during the remainder of that year until he proves those matters."—[Mr. Hudson.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to rates of benefit.)

8.15 p.m.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): Before I call on the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) to move the next Amendment, which he has handed in in manuscript, Mr. Speaker desires me to point out that he would not have accepted that Amendment but for the fact that all the Amendments to Clause 5 are out of order, and that it will not be in order for hon. Members, under a Motion to leave out the Clause, to attempt to develop in detail arguments which would have been permissible on the Amendments if they had been in order.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This is the instrument by which the Government propose to restore the cuts made in 1931, and this is the only Parliamentary way in which we can raise some of the matters which we desire to discuss. We shall not press the matter to at Division, because we want to obtain what the Government have decided to give, but at the same time we desire to point out that they should have proceeded much further than they have done in this
respect. In Committee we put down Amendments for the purpose of discussing the rates of benefit and were hoping to have a general discussion upon raising them not only to the 1931 figure but beyond, and nearer to what we consider to be adequate scales of benefit. Owing to a disagreement with the Chair we were unable to discuss those Amendments at all, and this is the only opportunity we have to discuss what the rates of unemployment insurance benefit should be, although, as Mr. Deputy-Speaker has pointed out, it will not be possible to discuss them in detail. I should like, first of all, to make an examination of the extent to which the cuts made in 1931 have, in fact, been restored. The general impression created by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the unemployed were to be placed where they were before the cuts were made, but it has been made clear in the Debates on the Budget, and will be made clearer still in the Debates on the Finance Bill, that, as a matter of fact, if I may use a colloquialism, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sold the unemployed a pup.
The National Government secured its mandate from the country in 1931 after it had imposed a reduction of unemployment insurance benefit. I do not propose to run away from that position. It is perfectly clear that the people of the country knew what they were doing when they elected the Government. The cuts had already been made, and we have to accept the position that the country confirmed the Government in the imposition of the cuts. It would be improper for me to examine by what sinister methods the Government created the psychology under which the country accepted the cuts, but, nevertheless, it is true that the citizens of Great Britain confirmed the imposition of the cuts. But the Government did promise—it may not have been explicit but it was implied—that all the reductions in the standards of life imposed by legislation in the crisis of 1931 would be restored when the country returned to prosperity, or when it was possible to do so. There was a surplus of £31,000,000 on last year's Budget. That £31,000,000 has not been used for the restoration of the cuts, but for a purpose which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not in mind a year ago when he prepared his Estimates. It has been used for the Sinking Fund. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer said : "We are now in a position to restore the cuts to the unemployed, and I propose to do so." He restored the 10 per cent. cut on unemployment insurance benefit, 17s. a week for a man and 9s. a week for the wife, leaving the children where they were in 1931, because no cut was made.
But a cut was made in 1931 which is still not properly understood by many hon. Members. They have failed to realise that in 1931 no case was made out for the imposition of the means test except one of economy. I recollect the Debates in this House; they were short, terse, and inadequate, because the Government were then legislating by Orders. There was no Bill before it. I am within the recollection of hon. Members that when the means test was imposed it was imposed primarily for the purpose of making a reduction in national expenditure. From that day to this the House has not had an opportunity of discussing the justice of that cut. We have had Second Reading Debates, Votes of Censure, charges thrown across the House from Ministers to ex-Ministers and from ex-Ministers to Ministers, but we have never had an opportunity of dividing the House on the principle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the unemployed were to be put where they were in 1931. Our contention is that that has not been done. As a matter of fact, a sum equal to about £16,000,000 a year is still being withheld from the unemployed, and the Clause we are now discussing does not, in fact, put the unemployed where they are entitled to be even if we accept the standards of 1931 as proper standards to be attained.
Our first point is that hon. Members are not entitled in the Press or on the platforms in their constituencies to argue that justice has been done to the unemployed until they force the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend the standard rates of benefit mentioned in this Clause to all persons who are at the present time on transitional payment. That will cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer an additional £16,000,000 a year. I am using the sum of £16,000,000, because it is the only figure we have at the moment; no other figure is available. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a rough estimate of what it is going to cost in additional transitional payments by raising the standard, but, according
to my calculations, the figure of £16,000,000 is a reliable one to work upon at the moment. I want to express my own indignation and the indignation of the party to which I belong at this continuation of a sacrifice on the part of the poorest members of the community. Not only that, but I want to indict hon. Members opposite of the most objectional hypocrisy in claiming, as many of them are, that justice is being done to the unemployed, when as a matter of fact the Government are restoring 6d. to the Income Tax payer and retaining £16,000,000 a year which should go to the unemployed.
Our case has not yet been answered in the House. The case is a very simple one. In Great Britain there are 1,000,050 people in receipt of transitional payment. There were 850,000 in 1931. Those 1,000,050 people are being subject to an imposition which was placed upon them in the crisis of 1931. Our first charge against the Government is that they are going back on their word and betraying the promise made in 1931, by perpetuating the sacrifice that they pledged themselves to restore at the first available opportunity. We will not agree that anything like the 1931 position has been restored until the Minister of Labour and the Chancellor of the Exchequer get up and say, "We are wiping out the means test."
In Committee we desired to move an Amendment to raise the rates of dependents' benefit. A great case has been made out in this House and in the country for raising the children's allowance from 2s. to 3s. per week. We heard speeches from many benchers, from Conservatives, to that end. Where are those Conservatives now? We hear not a word from them. They were merely engaged in make-believe that they were concerned about the children of the unemployed. The scale of benefit is still 2s., and they are acquiescing in this Clause, which makes it impossible for us to move that 3s. to be substituted for 2s. That is our difficulty; we cannot face Conservative Members now with the opportunity of fulfilling the threat that they made against the Ministry of Labour in Committee. We cannot test their sincerity. They are not in the Chamber and we hear
nothing from them. Yet the 2s. is universally declared to be miserably inadequate for the maintenance of a child.
Although we go on paying the 2s., in the case of the means test the amount is less than 2s. in many cases. A dog cannot be kept for that sum. I have here a circular from the Dogs' Home at Hackbridge, of which the Patron is His Majesty the King, the President is the Duke of Portland, the Chairman, Percy M. Burton, and the Honorary Treasurer, Guy H. Guillum Scott. The circular sets out the charges for the maintenance of dogs. A friend of mine who was going away and wished to put his dog into decent hands, wrote asking what would be the charges. The reply was that as from 1st June, 1932, the charges were : For dogs of fox terrier size or less. 1s. 3d. per day; for dogs of Airedale and wolf dog size. 1s. 9d. a day; for dogs of Great Dane and St. Bernard size, 2s. a day; cats, 8d. per day, or 11d. a day if accommodation with outside pen attached was required.

Mr. PIKE: Would the hon. Member continue his analogy on the basis of the child in a hospital or nursing home or even in a child's nursery, under the care of someone other than its own parents?

Mr. BEVAN: I have not got the diverse statistics for which the hon. Member asks. If he inquires what is the cost of maintenance of a convict, he will find it is much higher than 2s. His case is that it is cheaper to keep people in an institution than at home?

Mr. PIKE: No.

Mr. BEVAN: Then the interruption confirms my position.

Mr. PIKE: I think I have proved the opposite. The hon. Member is attempting to show that it costs a person who places a pet animal in someone else's care more than it costs to keep the animal himself.

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member misunderstands me. I suggest that there are people who are prepared to pay more for the maintenance of a dog than for a child. His Majesty the King is the Patron of this Home and the Head of this Empire, and he declares that you cannot keep a dog for less than 1s. 3d. a day.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems now to be getting very close to the point of bringing the name of the Sovereign in to influence the Debate.

Mr. BEVAN: I say that what I am declaring is absolutely correct. The Sovereign of this country is the patron of this dog's home. If there was any decency in this country, people would not say that you can keep a child on 2s. a week and yet say that a dog cannot be kept on less than 9s. a week. It is a monstrous and inequitable position. That is precisely what is happening. I wish that hon. Members in these Debates would try to conceive the human realities of the unemployment problem, instead of confining themselves to abstract discussions about the solvency of the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the powers of statutory boards and committees. I wish they would try to realise that what is actually happening, in my constituency and in the constituencies of hon. Members on the Conservative benches who represent industrial areas, is the malnutrition of children, day by day. Although it may be possible to restore the nation's finances by a year or two of adjustment, a year or two of economy, it is impossible to give back to those children what you have taken from them. If a child starts by being undernourished it suffers throughout life. We say that no temporary circumstances of national financial difficulty should cause children to suffer permanent disabilities.
We say that in restoring the standard benefit to where it was in 1931 the Government are not putting it where it ought to be. It ought to be much higher than that. If we had had the opportunity we would have moved an. Amendment in Committee to raise the rates of benefit from I7s. a week to £1 a week and from 9s. to 10s., and from 2s. to 5s. for each child, and we would still regard those rates as miserably inadequate. I think it was the Minister of Labour who said on one occasion that the Government were not paying unemployment benefit because they considered it was adequate—that it was merely something towards the maintenance of the unemployed man and his dependents. I believe it was described as assistance in addition to his own private resources. Perhaps it was the Attorney-General who said that, but
probably the Minister of Labour holds the same view. From what other source except unemployment benefit are unemployed men getting any assistance? Where else can they get help? They live upon unemployment insurance benefit or transitional payments. I would be out of order in pointing out the manner in which transitional payments are being assessed. I sent a communication to the Minister the other day showing that a man, in Acton, I think, had been refused benefit for himself and his wife on the ground that his son-in-law was earning £3 10s. a week.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think we can discuss the details of the administration of transitional payment on this Motion. The hon. Member is entitled to refer to it because of course what happens under Part I of the Bill will affect Part III, but he must not go into details.

Mr. BEVAN: I knew I could not argue the means test in detail and I did not propose to follow the point further. I was only endeavouring to point out that there are cases of exceeding hardship, and that if the Government could agree to extend the concession which has been made on Part I those cases of hardship would be greatly mitigated. There is one further point. I cannot understand why the Minister still resists our contention that these payments should be brought forward from July to May. We argued when the Budget Resolutions were before us that if this payment is desirable it ought to be made as quickly as possible. Why should there be any delay? The Minister said it was because an earlier payment would be impracticable. We do not accept that explanation. I have known retrospective payments to be made to unemployed men, on many occasions, covering six months, where there have been disputes before the umpire and where a long period has elapsed before the umpire has decided what rate of benefit, if any, should be paid in a particular case. Retrospective payments have been made of large sums covering long periods. It has happened in every test case. Men have received unemployment benefit long after they have returned to work.
The Minister of Labour is not doing justice to the intelligence of the House
when he offers that explanation. It is, if I may say so, "All bunk and bolony." The reason why the Government will not make this payment immediately is because they cannot do so and at the same time pay the debt. There is not enough money in the fund at the moment to start paying off the debt at once. They must allow the resources to accumulate. The real reason for declining to make the earlier payment is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to give way on the question of the debt. We again press upon the Minister to give us the real explanation, and not what we have had up to now, as to why this concession cannot be made at once. The interregnum between now and the receipt of the higher rate of benefit will take a good deal of the bloom off the rose which the Government are offering to the unemployed. Men are already asking when they are going to get back the 10 per cent. and if the Government want to make the greatest possible political capital out of what they have done they ought to restore the 10 per cent. immediately.
We on this side have suffered this evening from a considerable disability. We did not know until the last moment that it would be possible to have a discussion on Clause 5. We had hoped to have been able to move our Amendments and to get our discussion in the proper and ordinary manner but I would put it with great earnestness to hon. Members in all parts of the House that this House of Commons degenerates into utter futility unless it is possible to bring on to the Floor of the House some apprehension of what is happening in the cities, towns and villages of this country. The perpetuation of the means test and of the cuts brings suffering and hardship into the homes of people who are quite helpless to mitigate their own condition. If hon. Members had any sense of visual imagination they would be able to feel what is going on in the mining villages of South Wales, and Durham and Lancashire and they would realise that there are people to-day going short of the necessaries of life because of the callousness of this House. We have tried, quite inadequately, to represent their claims here. We have failed in doing it, and we shall probably fail again this evening, but hon. Members must not imagine that
because we have not been able to move them either by any small eloquence that we might have or because of our Parliamentary standing, they will be able to escape retribution for the way in which they have behaved in this matter.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is a rather curious feature of Parliamentary life that we have to move the rejection of a Clause which is giving some benefit to the unemployed, but we have to do it for the purpose of trying to bring before the House the plight of many of our people. This Clause restores the cuts, so far as I read it, in a certain time, but my objection is that the cuts are not given back as early as they might be, and I claim that three months earlier could have been managed quite easily. The point put by my hon. Friend is quite true, because retrospective payment is made in many cases. I have known awards in various trade disputes where arrears of pay have been given. In the case of one dispute in the mining world, a Sankey award was ante-dated, and months of payment were given to the colliers, and it was done quite easily. All their names were on the books, and it was only a question of calculation to give them back all they were entitled to. If the spirit of the Government were really behind the restoration of the cuts, it could be done in this case also without any trouble at all, because the names of all these people are on the records of the Ministry of Labour. I would rather the Government faced up to it and said they had no intention to restore the cuts earlier, because it meant saving some of the money for the class which they represent chiefly.
On Monday, coming down to this House, I got a paper reporting a broadcast talk on the previous Saturday night by an unemployed man, and I hope those hon. Members who are not now in the House heard the broadcast. This is what the man said :
I and my wife and my family of five children have got a total income of 33s. 3d. a week. Ten bob goes in rent and another half-crown for coal, and after we've paid for insurance and light we have about half-crown for food and clothes for the seven of us in the family. That's about 4d. each. That's a problem for my wife, and God knows how she solves it. The brunt of it all falls on the wife : a man hands in his money
and knows in his heart it is a hopeless proposition to keep a house for a week on it. All he can do is to walk out and leave his wife to make the best of it.
That man got 33s. 3d. This Clause gives back 2s. 9d., making it 36s., and surely everybody will agree that that is inadequate to keep a family such as I have described, but it would be a little bit. The 2s. 9d. given for the weeks that have gone by for three or four months would be a little gesture of hope to such a family. I think hon. Members opposite cannot but be moved by stories of this kind, because this is only one instance. There are hundreds and thousands of similar families in our land that are suffering just as this man's family is suffering. I would urge all hon. Members opposite to read a book which has been issued recently, entitled "Memoirs of the Unemployed," a splendid book, giving a description of the feelings of men suffering the pangs of unemployment and not knowing where or how to get the means to live.
One would have thought the first thing, now that there was a little to spare on the Budget, would be for the Government to have said; "The people who are in need of it most, the people who are suffering most, are the unemployed, and therefore we should try to make all the restitution we can." That has not been done, for, in my opinion, this is only a partial restoration. The right gesture would have been to give, right from the commencement, all that could have been given. We are making our protest, because we cannot accept this in the spirit of being thankful or feeling grateful to the Government for what they have done. My gratitude would have been greater if they had given back these cuts right from the commencement.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. KINGSUEY GRIFFITH: I find myself in a very considerable measure of agreement with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) in moving this Amendment, but when he represented, as I think he implied, that in the matter of the increase of the allowance to children he and the party to which he belongs have a record of continuous support of this proposal and of this increase, whereas the other wicked parties have always been getting in their way, I am bound to refer
briefly to facts which show that that is not the case. He referred to a certain dogs' home. I am not going into all the details as he did, but I have no doubt that that dogs' home or similar dogs' homes were in existence on the 9th July, 1924, when an Amendment was moved, under a Labour Government, to increase this particular figure from 2s. to 3s., and was voted down very largely by Labour votes. I have some reason to remember that particular Amendment, because, although I was not in the House at that time, the Amendment was moved by the then Member for Middlesbrough, East, Colonel Penry Williams, and was seconded by my own predecessor, the late Trevelyan Thomson; and anyone who looks at the Division lists upon that occasion will find some very curious instances. He will find the names of some Conservatives, such as that of the present Attorney-General, voting for the increase, and those of over 100 Labour Members voting against it.
I think it is time we got away from this idea that all the care for the children is concentrated in one particular party. By all means let us concentrate, if we can and as far as the Rules of Order permit, in getting these things settled upon a more generous basis now. I care not who puts the thing right, so long as it is done, but when I hear overweening and unjustifiable claims made from a particular quarter of the House, I feel bound to call attention to it. With the main argument of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale I am in very considerable agreement, particularly with what he said about the means test, but I cannot agree with him to the full when he says that no argument has ever been put up for the means test except that of economy. When his own leader was speaking on that very subject and said he did not want to pay out public money without an inquiry as to means, that was not a question of mere economy; it was that it was not a proper thing to do. That was the only possible deduction to be drawn from what he said. However, with regard to. the means test as at present administered, there is a very strong case to be made out for what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said. The means test as at present administered was introduced in a time of national emergency. Things were done in a hurry and more or less as a leap in the
dark without a clear understanding as to how they were going to work out.
Now that we come to deal with Clause 5 of this Bill we have all, and the Minister of Labour more than anybody else, a large experience of the working of this matter behind us, and we ought to know a great deal more of the lines upon which the means test can be humanely administered. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry) in Committee put down an Amendment which gave our idea of how a means test should properly be administered. It would be out of order for me to go into details of that kind now, but I agree with hon. Members above the Gangway on the Opposition side that the Government have not really restored to the poorest people who participated in the cuts at the time of the emergency that which is their just due. Whether it was promised in words or not, as long as a means test is administered in the circumstances of hard-ship that we know prevail at the present time, there has not been in the fullest sense a restoration of the cuts. Taking my full share of the responsibility for the cuts, as I must, I believed, when they were imposed, that, just as the Government through the Prime Minister was inviting the nation to share the burdens of the difficulties and the adversity which were upon the country, so, when prosperity gradually came to be restored, that prosperity would be equally shared and made available, if anyone had to be chosen first, for those who were in the gravest need.
While I recognise and welcome the fact of the restoration of the standard rate, while I agree with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and wish it could be made to operate at an earlier date, I believe the hardships taking place among those who are in receipt of transitional payments are the major fact of politics at the present time to the bulk of the people. Questions of foreign affairs rightly assume importance, and matters of trade policy, in the end, are reflected in the homes of the people, but this matter of the administration of the livelihood of the very poorest is the thing which, must come home first to the people, and is the thing by which every Government in the end, as long as these conditions endure, is bound to be judged. I ask that we shall take this Clause, with the
restoration of the cuts as far as it goes, merely as a foundation upon which, to build an edifice more worthy of the appeals that were made on behalf of the National Government at the time of the last election. If that is to be done, I believe it has to start with the administration of the means test, and that, until that has been properly and adequately tackled, it is misleading to pretend to the people that either by the Budget or by any other part of the Government's policy they have really been put back into the position that they ought to occupy and which they were originally promised at the time of the election.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Last week I had occasion to make a comment upon the Chancellor's Budget speech, and I do not think I wrongly represented the views of hon. Members when I said that everyone who heard the Chancellor's speech believed that the whole of the unemployed were to have their cuts restored. The acclamation with which the Chancellor's statement was received led me to believe that every supporter of the Government and my hon. Friends above and below the Gangway believed that that was to be so. We have since learned with regret that a substantial number—at least 40 per cent.—of the unemployed will not have their cuts restored. The means test is to continue to apply, and so far as that applies the inference is that there is to be no restoration of the cuts. We also know that the amount of surplus in the Budget could have been used to restore the cuts some time last year. It was a fact known to the Chancellor and to the Treasury that there would be some millions of surplus. In fact, I can read a quotation from a speech which the Chancellor made at Halifax, which I gathered from the "Financial Times," in which he said there would be a surplus. He was at that time conscious, and the Treasury were conscious, that there would be a substantial surplus at the end of the financial year.
The Government could then have endeavoured to provide means to restore the cuts. To have done so, however, would have destroyed the reason for propounding this Bill. There is no reason why the Unemployment Bill should be before the House now except for the purpose of implementing Part II. That
means perpetuating the means test. Everyone who was in the House when the economy measures were propounded by the Government can recollect the phrase in common use; there was to be equality of sacrifice. There has been no equality in the restoration of the sacrifices that were made. I am amazed that hon. Members supporting the Government have not made their voices heard, particularly when at this stage they must feel that they have been deliberately deceived by the Chancellor's Budget statement. I am certain they would feel as passionately as I do if they were faced with a position comparable to that in my constituency. I wish to present a picture of that constituency, and hon. Members will be able to appreciate how few people will receive the 10 per cent. that is to be restored as compared with the number from whom it was taken in 1931. It is a long statement, but I think it is necessary for hon. Members to hear it in order that the picture may be clearly seen.
These figures were given in reply to a question to the Minister of Labour in which I asked him to state the number of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit and transitional payments respectively in five Exchange areas known as Maesteg, Ogmore Vale, Pontycymmer, Aberkenfig and Bridgend for the last four years consecutively to date. The reply I received states that at the Maesteg Exchange on the 23rd February, 1931, there were in receipt of standard benefit 2,391 persons and in receipt of transitional payments 812. I leave the intervening years and come to 1934. In February, 1934, the number of persons in receipt of insurance benefit was 260—although in 1931 there were 2,391—and in receipt of transitional payments 2,559, whereas in 1931 there were only 812. At Ogmore Vale there were in receipt of standard benefit in February, 1931, 313 persons and in receipt of transitional payments 283. In 1934 there were in receipt of insurance benefit 155 and of transitional payments 737. At Pontycymmer the number in receipt of standard benefit in February, 1931, was 844, and of transitional payments 343; and in 1934 those in receipt of insurance benefit numbered 210 and of transitional payments 1,040. At Aberkenfig in February, 1931, the number in receipt of unemployment benefit was 283, and of transitional payments 342; and in February, 1934, the figures were 152 in
receipt of insurance benefit and 585 in receipt of transitional payments. At the Bridgend Exchange in February, 1931, those in receipt of standard benefit numbered 662, and of transitional payments 227; and in February, 1934, the figures were 280 and 722 respectively.
That is a picture of my constituency. Roughly, 40 per cent. of the employable persons are idle. If those figures were worked out it would be found that of the persons totally unemployed about 70 per cent. are in receipt of transitional payment, which is the converse of the position in 1931 when this Government came in. The persons who were deprived of 10 per cent. cannot hope to have the 10 per cent. restored, because they are now subject to the means test. They have been deliberately deprived of the possibility of having the 10 per cent. restored to them. The same thing obtains in most industrial constituencies—in practically all the areas where our staple industries are so badly depressed. I could give the figures for Glamorgan as a whole, because they were published recently by the Chief Assistant Public Officer for the county of Glamorgan, but I have quoted them in the House once and I do not desire to repeat myself. But it is known to the Department that 98 per cent. of the persons receiving transitional payments in Glamorgan have been in receipt of the maximum amounts. Every penny piece of savings—all that they have managed to acquire, the value of their property, the income going into the home from sons and daughters who may be in the scholastic profession or some other occupation—all those items have been calculated against them. They are right down in the depths of misery and degradation. They have made their sacrifice, but the Government are not prepared to restore the 10 per cent. to that enormous aggregation of people. If the means test is to continue they cannot hope to have a return of the 10 per cent., and to that extent the members of this House have been wilfully deceived.

Mr. GLUCKSTEIN: How?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Because every Member present when the Chancellor made his speech believed that the 10 per cent. was to be restored to the unemployed. If that were not so hon. Members would not have acclaimed his words so vociferously as they did on that day. I
realise how difficult it is, when moving the deletion of a Clause, to keep within the narrow bounds of order. Our Amendments were not considered to be in order, and therefore we were unable to speak on them, and we hope that hon. Members who are now present will appreciate the significance of our case. This is the first opportunity we have had of treating of the means test, and we cannot expand the discussion on that issue, because it would not be in order, but we are asking the Minister at least to make the increased payments retrospective to May rather than to July. Though there is no possibility of persons who come under Part II receiving the restoration of the cut which they suffered through the application of the means test to them we are hoping that the Minister will be able to make the restoration of the 10 per cent. to those persons who are entitled to it apply from the beginning of this month rather than from July. I hope we shall be able to carry the Minister with us, because I am certain that in doing that we shall also carry with us those who are ready at all times, right or wrong, to follow his advice and to walk into the Lobby with him. That is what we are hoping to do by moving the deletion of this Clause. It is the only means we have of bringing the subject before tht House; the only means by which we could bring soma measure of justice to the people who made such enormous sacrifices in 1931.
In conclusion, I would like all hon. Members to appreciate the picture I presented to them of my constituency. In a valley where 6,500 miners were engaged we find 4,300 totally unemployed and with no prospect of being reabsorbed in the mining industry. Every form of technical appliance is being introduced into the collieries, not for the purpose of creating employment, but to reduce costs and in the end to increase unemployment. That applies to each of the mining valleys in my constituency. If all hon. Members were confronted with that industrial problem, they would insist upon the Chancellor restoring the 10 per cent. cut in full to every unemployed person, but a large number of them represent constituencies where unemployment is not rife. In the south of England, in the agricultural constituencies, people are not suffering in that way, and
are not faced with the high rates that prevail in the distressed areas and the derelict valleys. As hon. Members are not faced with that issue in their constituencies, we cannot hope that they will have the same impressions as are made upon the minds of hon. Members who represent distressed areas in which a large number of persons have been unemployed for long periods.
In not being prepared to restore the 10 per cent. cut to persons in receipt of transitional payments, the Government are hitting that section of the community upon which hardship has fallen most heavily. They are doing a great injustice to those who have sacrificed most. They are, in fact, designing to perpetuate poverty for all time in those homes, particularly in the distressed areas where the staple industries are likely to show a substantial fall in employment for some years to come. That the Government should design to perpetuate poverty in that way—there is no reason for the means test but that—indicates that there will be a class of people in the depths of poverty, and maintained in poverty. If those people obtain employment by some stroke of fortune for a few months, any little savings that they may accumulate by striving during those few months must be absorbed under the means test before they can hope to have the same consideration as persons who come under Part I of the Bill. For those reasons, and for many others that could be advanced, we hope that hon. Members will support us in asking that the Clause be deleted.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I join in the general appeal that is being made to the Minister of Labour. It was understood that the economies of the so-called crisis of 1931 were only of a temporary character, and that, whenever surpluses of any kind were available, the Government would spread them over the different classes that were compelled by Acts of Parliament to make sacrifices at that time. The Government have justified to a certain extent the belief of their followers in the country by restoring the cuts in full to some sections, and in part to others.
I represent the only party in this House which was not officially committed to those cuts and which had no part in or
sympathy with cuts or tests of any kind that were made in 1931. Every other party in the House had considered, had flirted, or had agreed to the general economies that were practised at that time. When the cuts were to be restored, we were led to believe that they would be restored to the most needy first. The Government are certainly entitled to claim, in so far as they have restored cuts to the persons drawing ordinary benefit with no dependants employed, or to single persons living by themselves with no other family income, that they have restored those cuts in full, but, as hon. Members of the Opposition have rightly stated, there is a large number of people who do not come within those categories at all, and who have had cuts and the means test applied so as to reduce their income, and to whom nothing is being given. I would go further and say that not only did a large section of the unemployed suffer a 10 per cent. cut, but they had the whole of their family income wiped out, and no provision is being made for them by the Government. Large masses of people depending upon one income in the home have been deprived of every penny—grown men and women—and yet no provision is being made for them.
The Government spokesman over the wireless told us that the cuts on the unemployed were being restored in full. I suggest that that was an attempt to convey to the public who are not drawing benefit and who know very little about unemployment benefit or cuts that the whole of the economy cuts were being restored. The very opposite is the case. I listened very carefully a week ago last Saturday evening to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs who, with his usual plausible tale, took credit for the whole of the cuts being restored to the unemployed. Either he was not familiar with the fact that the cuts were not being restored, or he was attempting to convey a wrong impression to listeners. We have a right to know where the Government stand on this matter, and I ask the Minister for a declaration to-night as to whether the means test, applied to people in receipt of transitional payments, is of a permanent and not of a temporary nature due to the national crisis.
I want to know whether there is to be any relief to that section now or at any time in the future. It would be very
easy for the Minister to disabuse the minds of the Government's followers who believed that they would get something when the national crisis ceased to operate. During the whole of the discussions upon the cuts it was at no time stated that any form of means test was to apply permanently to the people of this country, and I want to know whether it is to be of that permanent nature. The application of means test and cut to those in receipt of transitional payments has never been endorsed by the people of this country. Very few people realise the effect of what was meant by the application of the means test, and, cunningly, the application of that test was postponed to a few days after the last General Election. Therefore, the people of this country did not realise the consequence and the brutal effect of that cut.
When we talk of restoring the cuts to those who are most in need, I must say that it leaves me cold. While the man on the means test is not to have a penny of benefit, a person in the position of a Cabinet Minister with £5,000 a year is to have a restoration of £250 a year. The Prime Minister and his colleagues restore £5 a week to their already exorbitant salary, paid out of the taxpayers' incomes. Then, after restoring themselves from £4,500 to £4,750, they say to the people of the country, "There, we have distributed the balance that has been found in the Exchequer equitably over the field of those who were asked to undergo cuts and make economies at that time." To ask us to believe that is simply to make complete fools of themselves and of the whole electorate.
I want to ask the Minister, when he talks of restoring cuts, whether he means that this other section is to have nothing at all restored. Let me point this out to the Minister. Without going into any of the discussions on transitional payments, if the income of a family in employment has been reduced from £14 to £4 by the loss of the earnings of three individuals in the home, surely a sufficiently brutal means test has been applied to that home by the very inability of the system to provide employment. They might have been drawing £6 15s. per week with the income of one member on ordinary benefit, and then the difference between £4 and £6 15s. is wiped out. And we come along and subject the whole of the family
to a reduction of the family income by unemployment, we take away the whole of the ordinary benefit, and then we subject every person on £4 a week to a payment of Income Tax on the top of it.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that the hon. Member was in the Chamber when this Debate commenced. I then ruled that, although a reference to the means test would be in order, we must not go into the details of the Amendments on the Order Paper, which cannot be called because they are out of order. It seems to me that he is now going beyond that Ruling.

Mr. McGOVERN: That may be so, but I was attempting to keep away from the citation of any individual case, and simply to show that there is a large class of people to which these cuts have been applied—I am prepared to accept your guidance—in a ferocious and brutal manner, and that these people have not been considered, and are not having le-stored to them a penny of benefit that was taken from them at that time. I am content with the citation that I have made up to the present moment.
Finally, the only means test that we have ever accepted has been the Income Tax means test. That is the only fair test. I realise that cuts have been made and economies effected from the poorest section of the people in order to keep those at the top in comfort and luxury. Xo hon. Member need sneer at that remark, because it is entirely what we understand to occur in every crisis that takes place under your system. If a test is to be applied, you have the means and the poor have the test. Therefore, realising that the test must be made by the ruling class, realising that economies and cuts must be practised, realising that every orthodox political party in this House has agreed and subscribed to these cuts, Liberal, Tory and Labour alike—

Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Member state whether the Labour party have ever adopted that attitude?

Mr. McGOVERN: Certainly. I should probably be out of order to go into details, but I say frankly here that, if the hon. Member desires it, I can, outside this House on any platform he likes to
name, enter into discussion or debate with him and show that the Labour party in Debate in this House have always accepted every form of means test, that the majority of the Cabinet accepted the whole of the cuts that took place under the late Labour Government, and that since that time they have shuffled without end in attempting to put the blame on to other persons.

Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Member tell us whether he is speaking of us as a party, or of individuals?

Mr. McGOVERN: If I am in order, I will reply. At the Scarborough Conference—

Mr. TINKER: No.

Mr. McGOVERN: The hon. Member says "No," but I say that I am correct in this.

Mr. TINKER: I will join issue with the hon. Member on that point.

Mr. McGOVERN: At Scarborough the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) moved against the means test, and Tom Johnston, the late Lord Privy Seal, moved the application of a means test, but not on a Poor Law basis—whatever that means. The motion was carried overwhelmingly by the Labour Conference that a means test be applied to the workers of this country in receipt of transitional benefit. I will engage my hon. Friend on the other point.

Mr. TINKER: I categorically deny what the hon. Member says, and if it is not out of order I will prove it.

Mr. McGOVERN: If the hon. Member likes, I will take him afterwards to Ben Gardiner in West Ham, at the by-election, and prove to the satisfaction of every member of the electorate of that area that the Labour party not only agreed with the means test, but that the majority of the party agreed with the cuts and agreed with the children's 2s a week—

Mr. PIKE: And 5s. for wife and dependants.

Mr. McGOVERN: I say quite frankly that it leaves me cold when I hear parties getting up in this House and condemning Members of the Government for doing the selfsame things that they did and
subscribed to. In the Anomalies Act there was a means test; there is no doubt about that; and I shall be prepared to believe in the political honesty of the Labour pary when they say, "We did wrong in giving only 2s. to the children; we did wrong when we sympathised with the means test and when we applied it in the Anomalies Act; and we guarantee to the electors never again to be misled in the future, and to do the right thing by the working class." Until they say that, they, to me, are of the same political mind as the Members of the National Goernment. There is no need to attempt to convey to the electors that there is any difference. Two shillings a week to an unemployed man's child goes no further under a Labour Government than under a National Government Therefore, to get up in this House and condemn the Government when they themselves have gone into the Lobby m favour of these things is futile. Not an Act or any measure attacking the common people has been passed by this Government that has not been approved by hon. Members on this side of the House. I am prepared to condemn the National Government and to say that their economies are practised in order to stabilise their system by the poverty and sufferings of the poor, in order to give to those in comfortable positions security and affluence. But I do not expect that they will do things, because they never promised to do them. I do, however, expect the people on this side of the House, who have made lavish promises to the workers, to carry them out.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. TINKER: They are cheering you.

Mr. McGOVERN: They were cheering you in 1929 when you were carrying out a Tory policy. I am not interested in cheers, but only in certain political tenets in which I believe. If you say one thing at the street corner, come into the House and say it. If you make a pledge to the workers that you will stand against cuts and the means test and the 2s. allowances, do not condemn the Tories for being beasts of the jungle and then come in and do the self-same thing. I am not interested in cheers. The whole House is of a different political mind from me. The Labour party are no more friends of mine than are the Tory and Liberal
parties. They have all subscribed to the same thing. They say, "We were led away by the Prime Minister; we were led away by the Secretary of State for the Dominions"; but the spectacle of a body of 285 grown men being led away by two or three individuals savours to me too much of Babes in the Wood.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: There is one thing that rather surprises me. Before the Labour party went out of office, I and the hon. Member and his friends had occasion many times to disagree with the majority of our party, but neither he nor his friends left the party when the party was doing the things for which he is now condemning it. He could remain with the party until they reached the position in which, if I may put his case for him, he heard the statement of Mr. Johnston at the Scarborough Conference. While these things were being done he was a member of the party, and he must take his share of the responsibility.

Mr. McGOVERN: What we did in this House was to remain true to the pledges that we made to the electors. The party did not remain true to its pledges, and, therefore, we had no right to remain members of a party that refused to honour its obligations to the electors. Many people in this country believed that the Labour Government were doing the wrong thing at that time. It is true that the Independent Labour party hung on in the hope that the largo mass of rank-and-file members would see the dawn of reason and light, and would ultimately drive their leaders along a proper course. In that we were wrong; we were disappointed; we found that the tame white mice behind the leaders were prepared to back the leaders right or wrong. Therefore, we ultimately said to our party that there was no hope of those leaders leading, and we would get outside altogether. I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to pursue the matter—

Mr. SPEAKER: The question before the House is the restoration of cuts.

Mr. MicGOVERN: I am sorry I have been misled by the interruptions, but, after all, it is only nights like this that make Parliamentary government worth while. This is a very dull Chamber, and it is good now and again to have a heart-to-heart
talk. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has said, what is wanted is a change of heart, and a heart-to-heart talk now and again does no great harm. But I content myself with finally appealing to the Minister to make a simple declaration as to whether anything is going to be done for those persons who have not only suffered cuts, but whose whole incomes have been taken away, and as to whether the Government mean that the means test is to be permanent, without any relief for the great mass of the people who believed that it was due to reasons of economy in the national crisis, and that, as the crisis passed away, the cuts would be fully restored.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: When, Mr. Speaker, we were so pleased that you allowed us to move our Amendment for the deletion of this Clause, we little thought that our proposal would be used as a means to make an attack on our party. Had that attack been made only by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovem), I should not have considered it worthy of any reply, because, although the hon. Member poses here as the only honest Member of the House, we happen to know that he did not leave our party, but was expelled from our party. Had he been the honest Member that he now claims to be, he would not have been expelled. It was not, however, his speech that worried me; had it been only that, I should have treated it with contempt. But the speech which did cause us worry was that of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), who, I am sorry to say, has seen fit to leave the House after having made his attack on the Labour party.

Mr. BUCHANAN: He follows the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in that respect; he never stays in the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: There has been a considerable attack by the hon. Member for. Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), and hon. Members might listen to the reply.

Mr. MACDONALD: I was rather astounded to hear the attack of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough. I do not mind his referring to anything which
we may have omitted to do in the past. We are guilty of many omissions, and we are also guilty of some commissions. But when the hon. Member was telling us about what we failed to do in 1924 and 1929, and about our treatment of the unemployed, he might have had the honesty also to tell us what we did do in those two years. I have here a list of some things that we did in 1924. Let this be said, that, whatever faults the Labour Government might have had, we treated the unemployed more generously than any Government in this country has ever treated them, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) would deny that, though we may not have treated them as generously as he would have desired. Here are some of the things that we did in 1924. We increased the weekly rate of benefit by 3s., making it 18s. for a man and 15s. for a woman. We doubled the allowance for dependent children, making it 2s. a week for each child instead of Is., which was the former rate. We abolished the previous arbitrary limit that was placed on the number of weeks of benefit that could be drawn, and provided, subject to certain conditions which were laid down, that benefit should be payable continuously to an insured contributor who was genuinely unemployed and seeking work. We reduced the waiting period from six days to three days, thus largely increasing the amount payable in benefit—

Mr. WHITE: I would remind the hon. Member that that reduction of the waiting period was made on a Motion moved b the late Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, and my own name also was attached to the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: And it was opposed by the Labour Government.

Mr. WHITE: May I add that I do not understand that the hon. Member is questioning anything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough with regard to the Motion for the increase of the children's allowances from 2s. to 3s.?

Mr. MACDONALD: I willingly accept the hon. Member's statement. I know that he, along with Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, supported the reduction of the waiting period from six to three days. My only complaint is that, when the hon.
Member for East Middlesbrough wants to make an attack on the Labour Government, he ought to be fair. It is no use disclosing some things that they did not do while deliberately withholding certain things that they did to improve the plight- of the unemployed.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: My speech was directed to a part of the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) in which he had claimed for his party a peculiar care for this particular question. I am referring to a thing so recent in memory that no one can deny it. I suggested—and the Division list supports me—that enthusiasm for the case of the children is not the particular possession of any one party in the House, and we had better proceed on that basis.

Mr. MACDONALD: My objection still stands. The impression that the hon. Member tried to give, deliberately or otherwise, was that the Labour Government treated the unemployed and their dependants just as callously as the present Government. I am trying to show that their treatment of the unemployed was the most generous that the unemployed had ever had from any Government, and that at whatever time they have been in office they have always done all they could to improve the treatment that the unemployed get.

Mr. BUCHANAN: And that is why they passed the Anomalies Act.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I apologise for not having been present when the hon. Gentleman commenced his speech, but I waited for the speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams), who did not refer to me, and I was in a long time.

Mr. MACDONALD: I voted in every Division for the Anomalies Act, and, if the same Act were brought before the House again, I should also vote in every Division for it. I agree that the regulations brought in by the present Minister of Labour did not operate it in the way we intended to operate it. In 1929 again the Labour Government improved upon the treatment that was being meted out to the unemployed. We increased the benefit of males of 17 and over from 6s. to 9s., 18 and over from 10s. to 14s., and 19 and over from 12s. to 14s. For females
of 17 and over we increased the rate from 5s. to 7s. 6d., for 18 and over from 8s. to 12s., and 19 and over from 10s. to 12s. If hon. Members want to make an attack on the methods that the Labour Government adopted, let them be fair and honest and tell all.
Naturally, we are very pleased that this Clause is restoring the cuts to the unemployed. Our complaint is that the Government are not doing everything that might be done and are not placing the unemployed in the position in which they were in 1929.
The means test was imposed primarily for the purpose of reducing national expenditure. We say that the restoration contained in this Clause leaves that just where it was. The £21,000,000 saved in 1931 has been reduced to £16,000,000. If the Government still think that the means test ought to operate, would it not be reasonable to say, "We are saving £16,000,000 of the means test; we will use that £16,000,000 to improve the treatment of those who are on the means test." I agree with the hon. Member for Shettleston that 2s. will never maintain a child. If there are men and women who believe that 9s. ought to be paid to maintain a fox terrier for a week, surely there is no case for saying that 2s. is enough for a child for a week. When we asked the Minister to agree that the cuts should be restored as from April in place of July, he said he opposed it, but not because of any financial reason. We must believe, therefore, that he withholds it for some other reason. Our case is that the restoration contained in this Clause ought to have gone very much further. I have received this week a communication from the Children's Minimum Committee. They give some very interesting figures. They estimate that a man with a wife and three children needs in food 218. 8d., in fuel 2s. 5d., and in clothing, cleaning and lighting 5s. 8d., a total of 29s. 9d., plus a rent of 9s.—38s. 9d. The amount of benefit paid under this Clause will be 32s., so that on this very minimum figure there is a deficiency of 6s. 9d.

Mr. SPEAKER: There are some Amendments on the Paper which were ruled out of order because they would increase the charge; in other words, increase the contribution of the Exchequer. One of them was to increase the benefit
in respect of children. The hon. Member cannot go into a question which has been ruled out on an Amendment.

Mr. MACDONALD: I accept your correction, Sir. My point is that the Government in 1931 imposed a sacrifice of £21,000,000 on the households of the unemployed. This Bill restores scarcely anything of that £21,000,000. It is no use trying to argue, as the Government are doing in the country, that in the Budget and in this Bill they are restoring the unemployed to the position in which they were in 1931. If they were, our grounds of opposition would be far weaker than they are. Even hon. Members who smile should realise that, had the Clause done more, our case would have been met. The Clause gives the impression that, when the Bill becomes law, the unemployed will be in the same position in which they were in 1931, and there is no honest Member in the House who does not know that that is entirely wrong. So long as the Conservatives say, at Upton and at every by-election that they fight, that they are restoring the unemployed to their position in 1931, and try to get votes by creating that false impression on the electorate, our complaint will continue. I know what is happening, not only at Upton but right throughout the country. The cry is going forward, "The Government have placed the unemployed in exactly the position they were in prior to the cuts."
It is because of that deliberate attempt to mislead the electorate that we want to put before the House and the country the fact that this Clause does nothing of the kind. I defy the Minister or any Member supporting him to say now that this Clause will place the unemployed and their dependants in exactly the same position in which they were prior to the cuts of 1931. Because it does not do that we feel compelled to resist the Clause. Though we are very pleased with what is in the Clause, we are disturbed because of what is not in the Clause. The Government cannot argue that they have treated the poorest section of the nation as it ought to be treated. Hence the reduction of 6d. in the Income Tax, the giving back to the Income Tax payer of something like £26,000,000, is most unfair and indefensible, and on those grounds we are not able to support this Clause.

9.56 p.m.

Miss WARD: There is one point upon which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give a very definite definition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech :
The Committee is aware that the maximum rates of transitional payments are regulated by Statute according to the benefits under the unemployment insurance scheme. Therefore, this full restoration of unemployment benefit of which I have just spoken naturally carries with it a corresponding alteration in the maximum rates of transitional payments.
From the speeches of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway it would appear to those in the country who are not able entirely to understand the full provisions of the Chancellor's Budget that there is going to be no restoration of any kind to any of the people on transitional payments. I should be extraordinarily grateful if, in reply, the right hon. Gentleman would state whether I am right in assuming that the unemployed man in receipt of transitional payment who has no other means of any kind coming into his household, will receive, under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's declaration, the standard benefit rate as payment for his transitional payments. I think that I am right in assuming this, and I think that it is a little unfortunate that hon. Gentlemen should have so misrepresented the position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say :
It is rather difficult, owing to the needs basis of payment, to estimate exactly what that is likely to cost. I am proposing that there should he a Supplementary Estimate in respect of it of £3,600,000, which I estimate will be the cost to the Exchequer of the change during the present year.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1934; col. 922, Vol. 288.]
I contend that, if a sum of £3,600,000 is required from the Exchequer to meet certain additional obligations to people in receipt of transitional payments, at any rate, some section of the community who are now on transitional payments must receive some additional benefits as the result of the Chancellor's declaration. I was in my constituency last week, and I found it very hard among people who were in receipt of transitional payments and had been told by the Labour party that under no consideration whatever would there be any increase in the amount allocated to them under transitional payments. I feel this matter very strongly. All of us in this House, all
sections of the community, realise only too well the difficult period through which the unemployed of this country are passing. It is most inconsiderate and unfortunate that people who cannot understand the implications of the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be left in a state of misunderstanding with regard to what they may or may not obtain. To go down among uninformed people and tell them that they are to receive no additional benefits, when they know full well that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made provision for them in his Budget estimate, is not playing the game with those who are, unfortunately, in receipt of transitional payments.
I do not know that it is competent for me to give any word of advice to the Labour party, but I think that it would be much wiser for them if they stuck to the true letter of the law and criticised the Budget proposals legitimately and honestly. They are only making temporary party capital out of this matter, and I know my own people sufficiently well to realise that they will say, when the time comes for them to get what additional benefits are due to them under transitional payments, "We were misinformed by the Labour party." I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make the point quite clear, so that in the future there may be no further misunderstanding in the matter.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) has raised a question which has previously been raised in this House to which we have never yet received a proper answer. A family is now receiving 27s. 3d. a man, wife and three children under the means test for transitional benefit, and the hon. Lady asked, in effect, whether the family who have no other income coming in will now receive 31s., or, if there is no family, will they receive 26s., or in the case of a man who may have a part income coming into the house and receives 8s., will he receive 10 per cent. of his 8s.? The cut was 10 per cent. Will he have his cut restored? That question has never been answered. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question when we last debated this subject, but he has not yet answered it. He said that he could not quite answer it for the reason that the
Statutory Committee would have control, and must take into account the means.
I am not going into the question as to the restoration of cuts coming into operation, nor am I going to enter upon a long reply to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald). I do him greater courtesy than he does me. He is a Member of this House, and as long as he remains a Member, I will treat him as being as worthy of reply as any other hon. Member. I never hope to allow him to sink to the level at which he is prepared to place me. I will always pay to any Member of Parliament, for whichever party he sits, the courtesy of a reply. To that extent he is worthy of a reply, and I will say a few words in reply to him. He might have complained that my hon. Friend had not stated all the facts about the Liberals. But the hon. Member was making a serious personal charge, and in doing so he might have stated all the facts. He did not do so. He said that that my hon. Friend was expelled from the Labour party; nothing more. He might have been expelled for anything. The hon. Member wanted the charge to remain as nasty and as contemptible as he could. It is true that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was put out of the party, and he fought Shettleston afterwards against a Labour candidate. The Labour candidate received 1,500 votes, and lost his deposit. My hon. Friend received 12 times that number of votes, in Shettleston, where he was born, and where he is known, better than he is known by the right hon. Member for Claycross (Mr. A. Henderson) in his Division. If the hon. Member has any word to say against the hon. Member for Shettleston, let him say it outside and we will deal with him in the proper place.
The other point was on the general question of the cuts of children's allowances. It would be unfair on my part to take advantage of the amount of toleration that is allowed in this House. The hon. Member charges the Government with not doing certain things. There is this to be said for them, that the Government are not so mean as his Commission asked them to be. I challenge the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) with doing worse things, in principle, than the imposition of the means test. What about voting for taking all the money away from servant
girls? They were to have no unemployment benefit. How were they to live?

Mr. TINKER: I challenged the hon. Member for Shettleston on the means test, and on no other point. I asked him a straight question. Do not slip away about anomalies.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If Mr. Speaker will allow me, I will deal with you.

Mr. SPEAKER: These personal recriminations are entirely outside the question before the House. There has been an accusation and a reply, and that ought to be an end of the matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: A statement bas been made against me. Nobody either inside or outside this House can produce one single slanderous statement that I have ever made against a colleague. I have had slanderous things said to me, but never once have I sunk to the level of a reply in the same terms. I have stated my case on the facts, and on the facts I will fight. Hon. Members on the benches above the Gangway, if they care, can sink to a contemptibly low level, and I will let them sink to it. I will leave the subject, because I have to obey the Ruling of the Chair, but I hope some day to return to the subject.
To-night, the whole question of allowanees for children has been raised. We on these benches have insisted all along that these allowances were too low. When the amount of 3s. was moved in 1924 we took it as a compromise and as being better than 2s.; but 3s. was rejected, and when 5s. was moved 2s. was substituted. To that sum we have always offered the most strenuous opposition, and so long as we are permitted to be in this House, be it a long or a short period, so long as we are permitted to vote, so long as we have the right democratically to come to this House—some people would even keep us from voting—we shall exercise, as we have exercised, our right of speech and of vote against such things. Hon. Members cannot expect to sit in this House and vote for cruel things and to offer all sorts of excuses for themselves, and then to think that no one is to recapitulate their record. Those hon. Members gained office and the great dignities of the State through examining other people's records, and
they in turn as holders of office must be prepared to take what they give. What we are doing is honestly to examine their record in the hope that one day a real Socialist movement will be brought up which will not refrain from carrying out its pledges and will not forget the class from which it springs.

10.11 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I only propose to take up the time of the House for a few minutes in making some contribution to the Debate. It has been a very interesting Debate, but, on the whole, it has been an unreal one. It has been interesting because of the heart to heart talks there have been. We have heard reminiscences of the domestic relations of the Labour party during the last two or three years. In spite of those diversions, the Debate has been unreal, not that the questions raised are not of the utmost importance, both to the House and the people outside, but because they have no relation to the subject we are discussing. The Motion before the House is to delete Clause 5, which restores the cuts in standard benefit which were made in 1931. Is there any hon. Member who desires that Motion to be carried? Of course, there is not. Although we have debated the Motion at length, no one wishes it to be carried. The Opposition do not wish it to be carried, and as we have inserted the Clause in the Bill we, of course, support it. Therefore, there must necessarily be an air of unreality about the Debate.
I should be out of order if I attempted to deal with the administration of the means test or if I attempted to answer some of the statements made, which I should very much like to do, in regard to the administration in certain directions. I should be out of order if I attempted to deal with the question of transitional payments. This Clause has nothing to do with the means test or with transitional payments. It relates solely to the restoration of the cuts in standard benefit, a restoration for which hon. Members opposite have been asking for the last two years. Yet, when we bring in a Bill in which we restore what they have been asking us to restore, they put down a Motion to delete the Clause which restores the cuts. I think I shall be in order in saying that the rates of benefit, as they will be when the Clause passes into law, provide the most generous in-
surance benefits ever provided by any Government at any time. I am not at all sure how far I shall be in order in referring to the 2s. or 3s. for a child, but if I may make a passing reference I would point out that the present rate for a man, wife and one child is 253. 3d. and that when the Bill becomes law it will be 28s., that is an increase not of 1s. but of 28. 9d. For a man and wife and two children the present rate is 27s. 3d.; under the Bill it will be 30s., an addition of 2s. 9d.

Mr. MAXTON: Nothing very great.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I was asked a specific question by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward). I thought that the Chancellor made the point perfectly clear in his Budget speech the other day. He pointed out that the maximum rate of transitional payments was regulated by the rate of standard benefit and he reminded the House that as the standard rate of benefit was going to be increased it carried with it a corresponding increase in the maximum rate of transitional payments. That I thought was a clear statement. The hon. Member for Wallsend asked how it would be applied. The answer I have to give her is perfectly clear. Whenever the need justifies payment up to the new maximum that increased maximum will be paid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also went on to explain that for the purpose of the increased transitional payments he had provided in his Budget a sum of £3,600,000. A point was put by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) which I thought I had dealt with fully the other day. He asked why we could not ante-date the coming into operation of the increased rates of benefit. As it is they will come into operation on 1st July. The words at the end of Clause 5 are :
This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.'
It seems certain that the Bill cannot come into operation before the end of June. The hon. Member says : Why do you ante-date it so far as the recipients of standard benefit are concerned? I can only repeat the answer I gave the other day, that as a matter of administrative practice it would be impossible. Clearly, I cannot do it under the Bill without making an alteration. The people with whom you have to deal are
not, as one hon. Member put it, a limited number of test cases; there would be a very large number of persons who at some time or other, within this period, would be entitled to the increased rate of benefit.
As a matter of administration it really would be impossible to take the whole of this class of person, some for a short time and some for a long time, who are entitled to this increased rate of benefit, and when the 30th June or the 1st July came, to go through the whole lot and say to this man, "You are entitled to a week's payment," to another, "You are entitled to a fortnight's payment," and to another, "You are entitled to the whole two months." I am satisfied that such a step would be utterly impossible. In order to do this, moreover, it would be necessary to bring in a new Bill to deal with the point. An hon. Gentleman asked me yesterday, "Why do you not bring in a one-Clause ad hoc Bill?" The answer is that in order to carry out that suggestion you would have to frame a new Bill, founded on a Financial Resolution which would have to pass through all its stages, and then the Bill would have to pass through all its stages. When all that was done there would be the further fact that it involved the alteration at the various Exchanges of the records and the issue of instructions to the Exchanges. That would cover an administrative period which would take up substantially the whole time between now and the end of June when this Bill comes into operation.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman has made a little play with the fact that we have advocated the deletion of this Clause, but he knows as well as anyone that that is the only way in which we can get an opportunity for a discussion of this matter. Those who were in the House at the time heard the Deputy-Speaker in the name of Mr. Speaker explain to the House that a large number of Amendments on the Paper, one of which was to date this restoration back to May, were not in order and could not be moved. Therefore, the only course open to us was to move the deletion of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has given some reasons why this amount could not be ante-dated. But we can give an assur-
ance and a guarantee that if he wished to ante-date this payment, we would put a special Bill through for him in a few minutes. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman can find no refuge in that argument. I am not too particular who scores debating points or whom he scores against, but what I am concerned about is whether or not we are going to get people who are unemployed through no fault of their own, placed back in a position where at least, if they still suffer from lack of opportunity for exercising their bodies or their minds, they shall not suffer from lack of the ordinary, elementary necessities of life.
I do not care what arguments people bring forward or what figures they use, no one is going to deny the fact that the unemployed to-day are in an infinitely worse position than they were in just over two years ago. [HON. MEMBERS : "No!"] I speak for myself. I hear stories, I see the people themselves, and hon. Members like the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), who come from areas in the North of England, can fortify what I say from their own experience and give facts to demonstrate the condition of the mass of the people in those areas. Those are the areas which will be affected by this proposal. Those are the people who will be affected by this restoration. We have often discussed in this House, under very sad conditions, the state of things in those areas, and it is no good on this occasion trying to emphasise further the condition of the people there. But everybody knows that the long-term unemployed men and women are in such a condition that every penny which you take from them helps to undermine them in such a way as to make it almost impossible for them ever to recover.
I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has restored to them part of the benefit—from their own fund and out of their own increased payments. No one can deny that that is the case. That statement is beyond denial. But I am glad that the restoration is going to be made, and I only wish that it had been made as from May and that they had not to wait for so long for it. It cannot be denied either that there is very grave doubt about the amount which the Chan-
cellor is going to bring in, as mentioned in his Budget speech, in the form of a Supplementary Estimate for this purpose. The Chancellor said he thought there was a possibility of applying £3,600,000 to this class of people, namely, the transition people. A few days before the Budget statement, I asked the Minister to state the total amount saved on unemployment benefit since the reduced rates came into operation in 1931 and the total amount saved since the operation of transitional payments. He told me that the total amount of benefit saved was £5,500,000 a year, and that in approximately the same period, that is from October, 1931, to March, 1934, the amount paid under the transitional payments scheme averaged about £21,000,000 a year less than the sum which would have been paid had it been possible to continue the payment of benefit to all claimants and at the old rates. That means that the transition people have lost an average of £21,000,000 a year. These are the people who need most consideration, and the Chancellor says that he is going to bring in a Supplementary Estimate to give them £3,600,000.
It was asked, "Will they get it? Is it guaranteed that the people will get that 10 per cent. increase which is represented in the £3,600,000?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly said, "I cannot give any guarantee." And he cannot. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour himself knows very well that when the transition regulations were put through the House and the Order in Council under which they are operating was discussed, he said continually, and he has said very often since, "No, I have nothing to do with the amount paid. I have no influence over it, and I cannot dictate to the local people." Have the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary, or have they not, any power to state to any local authority, public assistance committee, or even Commissioner, "You shall give one per cent., or 10 per cent., to these people?" They have not. The right hon. Gentleman continually washes his hands of all this power. I think myself that, as a matter of administration, it is probable that a large number of the public assistance committees will give the 10 per cent. increase, but it rests with them. There is no guarantee to the man
or woman Or family concenred, and certainly there is no guarantee that this £3,600,000 will be expended in this way.

Mr. MARTIN: How does the hon. Member reconcile that argument with the statement that these rates of transitional payment are regulated by Statute according to the benefits under unemployment insurance?

Mr. LAWSON: I do not know. That is for the Minister to explain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked if it could be done, and he said, "No, it cannot be done. It is purely in the bands of the public assistance committees."

Mr. MARTIN: But did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean that he did not know exactly how many unemployed there would be?

Mr. LAWSON: I wish the Minister would settle this point, because, as I have said, I think it is probable that the public assistance committees, or the great majority of them, will use their opportunity of applying the 10 per cent. I think so, and I would not think very much of them if I did not think that. But I was told that there is no legal power to compel them to do it, and if they do not wish to do it, then, of course, it does not operate.

Miss WARD: Is it not a fact that when this Bill comes into operation the people under Part II will no longer be under the control of the public assistance committees, but will be under the control of the Public Assistance Board, and that that board has got to draw up regulations, which will Be brought on to the Floor of this House for discussion before they become law, and therefore it will be out of the control of the public assistance committees altogether?

Mr. LAWSON: I am afraid the hon. Lady and I would not agree in our interpretation as to how the Public Assistance Board is likely to carry out its duties. As a matter of fact, my experience of Government representatives operating in Durham County is that they are likely to be worse than public assistance committees.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: They are all Socialists.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. and gallant Member does not know very much about the effects of this kind of thing, because
he does not come here very often when these matters are being discussed, but the House will be surprised to learn that the effect of the last administration of the means test by the Government representatives in Durham—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is getting rather away from the subject now.

Mr. LAWSON: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, but I Was rather led off by the questions which were put to me by hon. Members. I would point out that all that has been promised at the most is that we are likely to get £3,600,000 back out of the £21,000,000 that has been taken off. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, when the administration of the means test began, about 850,000 people came under it. At the present moment, the number is about 1,000,000, and it is significant that in proportion to the increase in numbers there has been an increased saving in the administration. I do not know how that has happened, and we say that there is in this Bill no guarantee, no hope, and no real consolation for the people who really need consideration. Many of these people have been out of work a year and two years; in many cases they have only a few shillings a week, and they are suffering in a multitude of ways because of the peculiar application of the means test. Now they are told that they are to receive only £3,600,000 out of the £21,000,000 that has been taken from them. Members may appear to make points with their constituents and in this House, but one thing is certain—they cannot wash out that continual physical degradation of life that is going on among great masses of people.
I wish that we could have discussed to-night means of immediate constructive help for the people who really need it. I am almost tired of hearing myself talk about this matter, but there are Members; not only of my party, but of the Conservative and Liberal parties, who know that if the mass of the Members of the House could but know the conditions of these people, they would appreciate more the need for immediate help. I sometimes respect the House because of the way it can be moved by certain considerations but I wish the House would be moved to come to the immediate
rescue of these people. I am not allowed to discuss the general question. The Government have at last taken some steps, but immediate help is needed for the people. They need boots, clothing, food and decent considerations, and this Bill does next to nothing for people in that position. I only wish that, free from party fetters, we could have had an opportunity of discussing this matter. If we have had to move the deletion of this Clause, it is not because we are not as thankful as anyone that someone is getting some consolation, and we do not under-value that; it is because we seek an opportunity of trying to ante-date the restoration of the cuts and to get some consideration for people who have deserved better of this House and the country.

10.40 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I would like to underline one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). The question of antedating benefit has been raised both by question and answer, and to-night in the House, but the Minister of Labour, who is perhaps a little more ingenuous than ever to-day, keeps on answering a question which is not put to him. He continually tells us that it is administratively impossible to ante-date to 1st July the increase in the benefits, because administratively it would be so difficult, in the case of people who had at some time or other been brought under the provisions of the Bill, to calculate the exact amount which might be due to them at the rate of 2s. for every odd week between the time of the Budget statement and the 1st July. I do not think anybody has ever suggested that we are handling that problem. It is very easy to answer something which no one has questioned. The proposal which is at the back of the minds of hon. Members opposite, as it is at the back of my own mind, and which is supported by many hon. Members on these benches, is not that on 1st July those persons should be given little dumps of varying amounts, but that as early as possible 2s. more per week should be given to the people who go to the exchanges to get benefit. That is the point, an extra 2s. per week, and not any complicated administrative arrangement for back payments.
The Minister said, "Oh, yes, that could be done, but it would require a new Bill and a Financial Resolution and each would have to be passed through all its stages." I am not so sure that it would require a Financial Resolution, seeing that none of the expenditure falls on the Exchequer but is to be met out of the fund. But, assuming tthat the right hon. Gentleman's advisers have told him what he has stated, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street has just announced that every facility would be given for such a Measure to be passed through all its stages in the quickest possible time. As it has been decided that the fund should be saddled with the payment of these increased benefits after the 1st July, it would not affect the Budgetary situation at all, as I understand it, and that being so I know that a great number of Members who are supporters of the Government think with me that it is a little ungracious, after the announcement of it has been made, that the change should not be brought into effect as soon as possible. As I say, the Opptosition have said they would facilitate any Measure to effect the change, and I really cannot imagine why anybody should debate it at all. It could go through practically undebated, with no opposition from any quarter and no expense to the Exchequer, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he should impress upon his colleagues in the Cabinet, if he cannot do this thing himself, the very strong feeling there is in the House that the offer of the Opposition to facilitate such a Measure should at least be favourably considered, and that we should not be answered every time this question is raised by a reference to the administrative difficulties of a proposal which no one has made and no one ever thought of making. Therefore I hope that this discussion, in spite of the rather flamboyant accusations made against each other by various sections of the Labour party, which have given us all a great deal of amusement and pleasure, may have some practical result arising out of the offer coming officially from the Opposition front bench.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I rise to join with the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in pleading
with the Minister to reconsider this position. I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that, whilst the procedure of the House may be cumbersome in the ordinary way, if there is a desire to get a Bill through quickly it can be done. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that when it was decided to reduce the allowances action was taken speedily enough. If we had to have a Bill in order to allow of the restoration of the 10 per cent. earlier than 1st July I am satisfied it would meet with no opposition from any section of the House. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman about administrative difficulties reminds me of the argument always used by the coalowners when there is a wage dispute. If we had, as unfortunately we have had for a number of years, a dispute in the coalfield, and we finally got a settlement, and then we asked for the settlement to date back to the time when the application was first made, we have always been met with the argument that that could not be done. I remember that in 1919 we were told that the Sankey money could not be paid, until some agitation was set on foot and then the colliery managers very speedily found a way in which to pay that back money. If there is a desire to give the unemployed more than is given by this Clause, there need be no difficulty in the speedy passing of a Bill through this House.
The discussion has been extremely useful this evening in eliciting the various viewpoints. There are hon. Members who feel that Clause 5, in restoring the unemployment cut as from 1st July, is restoring the cut completely. I submit that that is not the case. Two or three hon. Members from these benches have spoken very strongly because they come from derelict mining districts. The hon. Members for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) and Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) have told us of the amount of poverty there is in the South Wales coalfield. Unfortunately, poverty is riot limited to the South Wales or Durham coalfields. There is poverty in every coalfield in this country. In the West Riding there is more than enough poverty in the coalfield. They have spoken strongly because they feel deeply, and they feel deeply because they are in almost daily contact with the people who are suffering. When hon. Members apply the test as to whether this restores the unemployment
cut which was made in 1931, they should remember that more than one cut was then made upon the unemployed. If the only cut was a 10 per cent. reduction, and the Government are now restoring the 10 pr cent. reduction, they would be able to argue somewhat superficially that they were restoring the cuts.
I would remind the House that three separate and distinct outs were put upon the unemployed in 1981. It was possible for a man to draw 74 weeks of continuous benefit, but the Economy Act, 1931, reduced the maximum to 26. In 1931, we were told from the Government Front Bench that the economies were necessary purely because there was a financial crisis, and that all sections of the community had to make the sacrifice in order to pull the country out of the financial hole into which it had got. The restoration of the 10 per cent. from 1st July does not give back to the unemployed that which was taken from them in 1931. What is the position of those men? After the 23 weeks transitional payments were in operation, transitional applicants were put into three categories. There were those who received the full benefit, those who got the equivalent of what they would get on standard benefit and the other type of man who got part benefit, or less than the maximum, because he had some other resources. When there was unemployment insurance pay of 74 or 76 continuous weeks, you did not bleed a man as you bleed him to-day under the means test. The man who had been thrifty—hon. Members believe in thrift, and in encouraging the working man to save a bit for the rainy day—and who was drawing his full standard benefit each week for 74 weeks, was not called upon to touch his savings to the same extent as he is under the means test.
To say that the proposed restoration from 1st July was giving to that type of man that which was taken away from him in 1931 is nothing less than hypocrisy. These men are of the type who have been thrifty, and have made sacrifices, and have tried to put a bit away, the elderly type who appear to be the unwanted in industry, and they have been hit harder than some sections of the unemployed. This is not a full and complete restoration of the cut made in 1931. With regard to the other people who get something less than the maximum, they
have to submit to the means test, and I know nothing that has cut so deeply and has hurt so much in working-class districts as the means test. In certain parts of the country, especially in areas where you have pits derelict and great masses of men out of work, the means test has cut so severely that it almost stinks in the nostrils of the people in the locality. I say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, many of whom have not had the courage to address meetings in their constituencies since this Bill was introduced, that if they want to know what the electors are thinking about this Bill let them go into their constituencies where the means test is in operation.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Clause does not deal with the means test at all; it deals with the restoration of cuts.

Mr. SMITH: I would be the first to bow to your ruling, Sir. I was led away by my feelings, which on this matter are due to the fact that I know what is taking place in my constituency and in others. When a Member of this House visits his constituency and comes into contact with men and women who have been subject to this means test, it is bound to make him think very deeply indeed. Hon. Members may talk from now until next May about this Bill restoring the unemployment cuts completely, but they cannot substantiate that in argument. There is no doubt that the unemployed are suffering acutely. It would have been far better if the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been big enough and had had courage enough to have made this restoration of standard benefit operate sooner than 1st July. The relief given to Income Taxpayers started from 5th April. I have always held the view, and I think I am right, that the man who is in a position to pay Income Tax is far better off than the man who is out of work and on unemployment benefit. It would have met with the fullest approval of the House if the Chancellor had had sufficient courage to have made this operate sooner than is proposed in the Bill. While I am told by you, Sir, that I cannot discuss the means test in general, I think we are entitled to discuss some phases of it in so far as we are arguing that the means test was brought about in 1931 presumably because there
was a financial crisis. We submit that we have a right to ask whether it is the Government's intention to perpetuate the means test—

Mr. SPEAKER: There would be an entire Debate on the means test if that were allowed to proceed. It is not included in this Clause at all.

Mr. SMITH: I bow to your Ruling. When we get to the proper Clause I shall be only too delighted to deal with the means test in a broader aspect than is possible on Clause 5. To say that Clause 5 fully restores the unemployment pay is only partially to tell the truth, and we feel that we are entitled to ask, despite the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that this 10 per cent. increase should operate from an earlier date than the 1st July. I feel, also, that hon. Members opposite would in their hearts like, with the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), to see this increase operating in May rather than in July. What is happening, however, is what usually happens in this House. You get personal opinions subordinated to party loyalty. I know that there are many Members on the other side of the House who feel just as keenly about the poverty in the country as we do. I have never claimed that there was a monopoly of sympathy in one party. I have always felt that even the opponents I used to have in the old Poor Law days felt just as deeply and keenly as I did when they had to deal with the poverty problem. Where we used to fall out was as to how to deal with it. And I know that many hon. Members opposite will agree with me when I say that they would have liked to see the unemployed treated better than they are being treated under Clause 5.
We are dealing in the post-War period with a terribly big problem. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to be able to announce reduction after reduction in the unemployment figures, and no one is more pleased than myself to see those figures reduced. I have never believed in the idea that you have to make things worse in order to get them better. But I think the Minister will agree that in the coal-mining industry, to which I have been attached for nearly the whole of my working life, we are not getting the figures that we see in other industries. In 1920, the total wages bill
in the mining industry was £265,000,000; last year it was £84,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that in the mining industry in particular we have very difficult problems, which cause many of us a great deal of anxiety and trouble. We are getting longer periods of unemployment in the mining industry. If a man gets out of work at 45 or 50, he never knows when he is going to get another job; it is merely a matter of luck and chance. You may have the most skilled collier in the world working in a district, and, through sheer depression, the manager may say he has to stop the district, and he has to stop his good men as well as his bad men—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

SALE OF FISH ON COMMISSION BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Duty of salesman to record and deliver particulars of sale.)

Amendment made : In page 1, line 10, after "purchaser," insert "where reasonably possible."—[Mr. Bracewell Smith.]

Mr. BRACEWELL SMITH: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out from "the" to "and," in line 18, and to insert :
the actual total sum received or agreed to be paid for the fish.

Mr. MANDER: I object to this Amendment.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and, objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.